Poll: Would you own a servant (or "slave", for the dramatic)?

[Erttheking]

Snip

Their end happiness would probably be the best scenario. Personally I would advocate removing their compulsion to serve if possible because they would be happier in the long run, in the same way that someone would be happier if you get them off of a smack habit despite their protests. They're not exactly in the right mind to disagree. It goes against what their original masters intended, but seeing as they killed themselves they clearly weren't all that wise.

Also it kind of creates the conundrum of a race that wants to serve you but doesn't want you to do specific things, such as be subjected to removal of their need to serve. Are they really true servants if that's the case?

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

Their end happiness would probably be the best scenario. Personally I would advocate removing their compulsion to serve if possible because they would be happier in the long run, in the same way that someone would be happier if you get them off of a smack habit despite their protests. They're not exactly in the right mind to disagree. It goes against what their original masters intended, but seeing as they killed themselves they clearly weren't all that wise.

Also it kind of creates the conundrum of a race that wants to serve you but doesn't want you to do specific things, such as be subjected to removal of their need to serve. Are they really true servants if that's the case?

Good answers, and probably where I would end up myself. But I do have a couple comments.

I would point out that this runs dangerously close to applying a human perspective to an alien situation and insisting that the human perspective is the correct one. Now, that sounds silly because none of us are going to ever have to do this, but I think an important part of developing correct moral principles is to divorce prejudice from our logic process. And the thing about prejudice is that it is insidious. You cannot reliably identify your own prejudices.

Let me put it this way. My every instinct says we should fix these people. They will be much happier afterwords. We are doing them a kindness, even if it is one they don't think they want. But I hear myself think that and it throws up a massive red flag because those are all the same things straight/cis people say about gay/trans people when they justify forcing them into conversion therapy. And from their perspective it all seems completely logical and justified. Applying this particular straight/cis perspective to a gay/trans situation just does not work. It will lead to incorrect conclusions.

I am also concerned when I find myself using circular logic to argue against a position. These people want to be slaves. Are they competent to make that decision? No. Why? Because they want to be slaves. Can I justify my logic circle? Why does them wanting to be a slave mean they are compromised? Well it is perfectly obvious. It makes 100% sense in my mind, I cannot actually conceive how anyone in their right mind would want to be a slave. But I have a really hard time coming up with anything but "because being a slave would suck." But again, it is the exact same logic that leads to the mistreatment of minorities. This person wants to get a sex change operation. Are they competent to make that decision? No. Why? Because they want to get a sex change operation. It is perfectly obvious. Anyone who thinks that is obviously not right in the head. Always a big red flag when you find yourself using arguments that have been used against you.

I also think your point about the conundrum of a slave race that refuses certain treatments as a slave is a point easily glossed over but is actually of really big importance to the specific situation. We claim to want to give these people free will, but in the one case in which they insist on exercising their free will we deny it to them. What they are doing is basically insisting on a different set of rights, rights that really matter to them, and we are denying them those rights. That is another bad sign for me.

In the end I think if I had to chose I have to go with the free them if possible route, and I have reasons I wont elaborate on here for that decision. But I also have to leave room for the possibility that I am just wrong. I think my decision would make them more happy, but I might just be embracing my prejudice.

Now, all of this is of course hypothetical. But the principles we glean from these sorts of intellectual exercises can be enlightening. Which is why the voluntary slave question is a good one. I have a hard time thinking of anything more alien, it is definitely a perspective I cannot understand. So it is a useful tool when trying to work out how to approach perspectives I cannot understand.

 

[kris40k]

Is requesting to be a slave, with the assumption that the mind is fully capable and fully understands what it is asking for, a reasonable request? I would say no, for three specific reasons.

First, we cannot truly know if the mind is capable. Requesting slavery is a sufficiently odd thing that it makes me wonder if there is something wrong with the mind or that some outside influence (poverty and desperation, coercion, brainwashing) is at work. I think it is possible that a capable mind would make such a request, so this alone is not enough reason to deny it, but in combination with the rest of the points I think this is important.

That is a dangerous line of thinking, that someone who wants to be a slave must be either mentally disturbed or being coerced. Next thing you know you might say sexual attraction to the same sex is a mental disorder (oh, wait...) or that someone that wants to remove the genitalia they were born with must have something wrong with them.

There are people that want to be a slave. This is not a hypothetical, this is real life. While in current modern US culture, the Master/slave relationship is consensual, and slave ownership is illegal in the USA, if drawing up legal paperwork saying that they were in fact owned property of another individual of their choice were to become legal many would want to do just that.

Two, accepting slavery into a society for any reason is dangerous. It sets a precedent that is ripe for abuse. Requesting that slavery be introduced into a society, a necessary part of becoming a slave, is not a reasonable request. This is where point 1 comes back - a sufficiently desperate person might become a slave just because it is the only way to survive, and in order to do so they would likely be willing to lie and claim that they simply wish to be a slave. Since we cannot truly know the mind of others we cannot provide adequate protection against the possibility of the system being abused.

I do not believe that your point 1 is based on solid thinking, therefore it does not come back around.

Three, slavery can be sufficiently simulated as a paid servant. I see no need to take the above risks. For the good of society, the object in question is just going to have to be paid and have rights.

Slavery and being a paid servant are not the same thing, there are many difference in the powers and responsibilities of the relationships and emotional attachment and would not satisfy the needs and desires of a consensual slave.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

Is requesting to be a slave, with the assumption that the mind is fully capable and fully understands what it is asking for, a reasonable request? I would say no, for three specific reasons.

First, we cannot truly know if the mind is capable. Requesting slavery is a sufficiently odd thing that it makes me wonder if there is something wrong with the mind or that some outside influence (poverty and desperation, coercion, brainwashing) is at work. I think it is possible that a capable mind would make such a request, so this alone is not enough reason to deny it, but in combination with the rest of the points I think this is important.

That is a dangerous line of thinking, that someone who wants to be a slave must be either mentally disturbed or being coerced. Next thing you know you might say sexual attraction to the same sex is a mental disorder (oh, wait...) or that someone that wants to remove the genitalia they were born with must have something wrong with them.

Yes, I specifically mention that in the post directly above yours, making the exact same comparisons. Really good points, and why even though I cannot understand it I specifically say "I think it is possible that a capable mind would make such a request, so this alone is not enough reason to deny it". Something being odd to me is never going to be enough for me to say it should not be allowed to occur.

I think the problem was in my wording of "if the mind is capable." Capable is the wrong word there perhaps. Compromised might be better, as I think that is actually the more pressing issue.

There are people that want to be a slave. This is not a hypothetical, this is real life. While in current modern US culture, the Master/slave relationship is consensual, and slave ownership is illegal in the USA, if drawing up legal paperwork saying that they were in fact owned property of another individual of their choice were to become legal many would want to do just that.

Sure. I also make the specific point that this is not a purely hypothetical situation. I was never treating it as such.

I do not believe that your point 1 is based on solid thinking, therefore it does not come back around.

I think you misunderstood the basic premise of my point number 1 and how it relates to point 2. The problem is not that a person requesting slavery is surely compromised, as I have stated I do not think that is the case, but that we have no reliable way to tell the difference between a compromised person and a not compromised person.

If we did have such a method then the difficulty disappears.

Slavery and being a paid servant are not the same thing, there are many difference in the powers and responsibilities of the relationships and emotional attachment and would not satisfy the needs and desires of a consensual slave.

Sure, but can you come up with a system that doesn't allow for the enslavement of the unwilling or the coerced? Remember, I am working on the principle that no reasonable request can be denied. The unreasonable request is not that the person wants this kind of relationship. The unreasonable request is putting laws in place to allow it legally. This puts other people, especially the politically and financially vulnerable, at significant risk. Historically, people will do their very best to enslave others against their will whenever the law gives them a chance. It doesn't even have to be literal slavery, many people have been forced into virtual slavery through things like perpetual debt or sufficiently low wages that keeps them from being able to escape an exploitative situation. It still happens to this day despite our best efforts to eliminate it.

And while, as you point out, it is not perfect a close alternative does exist. It would be rather easy to position oneself into virtual slavery to someone else. Though I will admit that I am incapable of making the call on if this is a sufficient substitute.

 

[WolfThomas]

You've never spoken to PETA have you?

Although that is not my personal point of view (I just wished to illicit a reaction to further the discussion morally and you have all given certified proof that you truly do not see the similarity).

I think there is some merit in the comparison as one can question where they draw the line.

I'm well aware of PETA's beliefs and I discount them as fringe nutjobs. I truly reject that similarity.

Simply put I don't believe any animal so far on Earth is equal to a human in rights. That doesn't mean I believe they have no rights (and some have more than others). I simply see a clear line between humans and other animals. We can discuss definitions of "sapience" or "sentience" but we are the only self-aware verbalizing species of intelligence on this planet.

We won evolution for now and get to reap the benefits (until we wipe each other out or ascend to a higher plane of existence, whichever comes first). Furthermore we are an evolutionary force. Cows, dogs etc. We have molded them over thosuands of years far from their original origins. PETA and other organisations have a stagnate view of nature.

If we created an intelligent lifeform either via genetic engineering or AI I believe they should have the same rights as humans. More wildly if we meet a lost tribe of Neanderthals or Aliens crashland, they should have the same rights.

I am therefore 100% adamantly against the enslaving of any being that meets that criteria. I think slavery is abhorrent because all other abuses, rape, murder, incest, cannibalism are enabled and ignored by treating humans as.. well non-humans.

By the way on the pet front, I don't own any pets. But I love dogs. Not just because they're awesome (which they are). But because how ever many many thousand years ago they joined Team Human Race and have been helping us ever since. It's this (artificially sculpted admittedly) loyalty that makes me sad about a dog dying, but ambivalent about a deer.

 

[kris40k]

I think you misunderstood the basic premise of my point number 1 and how it relates to point 2. The problem is not that a person requesting slavery is surely compromised, as I have stated I do not think that is the case, but that we have no reliable way to tell the difference between a compromised person and a not compromised person.

If we did have such a method then the difficulty disappears.

Sorry, looking back I was too short and not clear enough in what I meant. You say that we do not have a method, and I believe we do. Forgive me if I'm wrong on this, but my understanding is that in regards to sex reassignment therapy, varying based on country/location/laws, its pretty much common that before certain treatments such as HRT or SRS that observations from qualified health professionals help determine if someone is "in their right mind" and that it is an appropriate choice of action for the individual both physically and emotionally.

I propose that similar efforts, in addition to possible other methods (such as a background check) could be done to ensure that people are not being coerced or otherwise manipulated.

Sure, but can you come up with a system that doesn't allow for the enslavement of the unwilling or the coerced? Remember, I am working on the principle that no reasonable request can be denied. The unreasonable request is not that the person wants this kind of relationship. The unreasonable request is putting laws in place to allow it legally. This puts other people, especially the politically and financially vulnerable, at significant risk. Historically, people will do their very best to enslave others against their will whenever the law gives them a chance. It doesn't even have to be literal slavery, many people have been forced into virtual slavery through things like perpetual debt or sufficiently low wages that keeps them from being able to escape an exploitative situation. It still happens to this day despite our best efforts to eliminate it.

You make a good point that were a system in place, it would likely be abused by those of less moral fiber. And do not get me wrong, I find forcible slavery to be disgusting and a horrible crime against humanity. However, the same can't be said about consensual slavery. I bring up, however, that we don't outlaw marriage just because some spouses beat or victimize their other spouse. Marriage isn't wrong because some abuse the institution of it. Forced marriage? Sure, in western countries that is outlawed. Consensual marriage? Of course not.

Now, I will concede that as you mentioned, slavery has, and probably will would it brought back in a consensual manner, be abused. You don't just slip this through as a rider in a budget bill. Something like this would have to be approached carefully. I do think that the similarities between consensual marriage and consensual slavery are close enough to warrant a look at whether or not limiting, outlawing, or otherwise blacklisting as "mentally disturbed" an individuals emotional and sexual needs just because we, ourselves, feel its "weird" is really just and humane.

And while, as you point out, it is not perfect a close alternative does exist. It would be rather easy to position oneself into virtual slavery to someone else. Though I will admit that I am incapable of making the call on if this is a sufficient substitute.

Yet we didn't accept that civil unions were "close enough" for homosexuals, now did we? Somehow telling someone that its "ok, they can keep 'pretending'" to act out what they need for emotional and sexual fulfillment or needs comes across as a bit ... too much.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

Waitwhat.

Yeah, no. NONONONOHELLFUCKINGNO, I would not want a "DearS" or whatever they're called. 0_o That's just fucking CREEPY.

If it was a straight up robot with no emotions feelings or sentience that I could turn off or put in sleep mode? Sure, gimme. If it's a regular person who I'm paying to see to my needs like some kind of maid or butler, sure, paying work is paying work and I'd treat them well.

But a sentient being that only lives to serve and gets SAD if you don't rely on it to help you?! That trips my creepy-o-meter and puts it squarely in the red.

Besides, mine would be MISERABLE, as I'd want to be helpful to it as well and it'd be all "WHY U NO LET ME HELP YOU U MAKE ME HAS A SAD!" when I'm just trying to help because helping others once in a while makes me happy too. :s

 

[chadachada123]

Would I want one? Not particularly, though having an extra set of hands could be useful. Would I take one? If the being was going to be owned by somebody no matter what, I'd rather not chance them being owned by an asshole, so sure.

I'd take this being and offer them freedom, should they accept it, or otherwise allow them as much liberty as they desire. Much better than saying no and just pretending the problem doesn't exist.

 

[pookie101]

its not sci fi, its not the distant past.. there are around 36 MILLION men, women and children are kept as slaves right at this moment

so fuck no

It's a multi billion dollar, transnational enterprise. It's not obscure either, if you like chocolate and coffee, or wear clothes, you're a part of this too.

exactly right.. so for most people the answer to the OP's question.. they already are involved in the slave industry

 

[kurokotetsu]

Look at my avatar. DO you know what that means? Can you imagine my answer?

As a matter of fact, when I read the title, I was thinking, "Huh, I wonder where kurokotetsu is..."

As far as my answer, yes, as long as the servant/slave enjoys it.

Good to be noticed! Thanks! And yes, I'm of the same opinion, if they choose servitude out fo theri free will (not a programmed will to do so, but a concious choice of a free human, to serve) I think it is awesome.

I will also not get into the discussion about the history of slavery.

 

[Jute88]

You know the term slavery has loads of different meanings throughout history? From a lowly servant in the Roman Empire to the eunuchs in Ancient China, that basically were in charge of running the country?

Yup pinnacles of liberty and personal freedom...wait.

Owning people is wrong be it slavery, serfdom, indentured servitude or whatever name it goes by.

I don't care for whatever rose tinted historical revisionist glasses you wear.

I'm not saying that slavery was a good thing. What I meant is that you can't paint a global phenomenon (slavery) with a single brush. It had variations. Some slaves held certain rights while others didn't. Some were treated somewhat fairly while others were lucky to live past the age of 20. Some cultures gave slaves positions, where they could influence who becomes the next heir to the ruling dynasty. I'm not here to pick an argument, just reminding how complex some things are, especially when it's practised on almost every continent (not sure about Australia though).

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

Not to mention that it would basically be training you to be totally helpless, through a conditioned response to guilt.

*screams internally* OH GOD THAT MAKES IT EVEN CREEPIER.

At that point, if they all die off or suddenly decide "hey, how about we all take over the world form out 'masters' since they can't operate on their own anymore!", the human race is SCREWED.

 

[happyninja42]

its not sci fi, its not the distant past.. there are around 36 MILLION men, women and children are kept as slaves right at this moment

so fuck no

It's a multi billion dollar, transnational enterprise. It's not obscure either, if you like chocolate and coffee, or wear clothes, you're a part of this too.

exactly right.. so for most people the answer to the OP's question.. they already are involved in the slave industry

There is a distinct difference in partaking of products that are produced by slave labor, that you are basically unable to stop in most cases, and consciously deciding to directly own another being, with the express purpose of them serving you. As many have stipulated, since the OP's statement is somewhat vague about the servants status, it depends on the nature of the situation. If the being has no choice in the matter, and was specifically designed to want to serve me, but it was also conscious, most seem to feel that would be unethical. If we're just talking about a robot, like a Roomba, that's a different story. I can't do anything about some 3rd world country using slave labor for their products (other than attempting to find an industry that doesn't actually use this, which is basically impossible in most cases), but I can decide to not directly own what I personally would consider a living being.

Now, if it was an employment kind of arrangement, where the being was compensated for their time as my servant, well, then to me, they would be no different from any regular human, who works in the serving industry. Butlers, maids, etc.

I personally would take great issue with the idea of an engineered species, designed to be my servant, and also being engineered to WANT/LOVE serving me. Giving them no choice in the matter at all is slavery, and I won't directly participate in that at all. But if the being, of it's own free will, decides it wants to work for me, then sure, why not?

 

[WolfThomas]

I'm not saying that slavery was a good thing. What I meant is that you can't paint a global phenomenon (slavery) with a single brush. It had variations. Some slaves held certain rights while others didn't. Some were treated somewhat fairly while others were lucky to live past the age of 20. Some cultures gave slaves positions, where they could influence who becomes the next heir to the ruling dynasty. I'm not here to pick an argument, just reminding how complex some things are, especially when it's practised on almost every continent (not sure about Australia though).

On reflection I am sorry I was so riled up. I'm not sure why and clearly you and no one here (I hope) is pro-slavery. It's just a topic that makes me passionate.

I tend to think there are certain moral milestones that once achieved (outlawing slavery, universal suffrage, gay marriage etc), we are obligated to defend. While I'm not saying we should vilify all these ancestors, I don't think we should let things that are morally abhorrent slide by with "that's just how things are".

As you mention. An Imperial Chinese Enuarch might wield enormous powers, but he was still a young boy at some point forced into involuntary genital mutilation. Romans might value a slave for their skills or craftmanship, but they were also a culture were having sex with your slaves was just a given, plus crucifixion, more genital mutliation and what not.

I'm also aware that many of my behaviors now might be considered repugnant in 500 years too.

 

[The Enquirer]

Have we learned nothing from the Geth in Mass Effect? Eventually they'd rise up and slaughter us. We'd be forced to live on ships endlessly searching the galaxy for... something, until we get pissed off enough to say "fuck it" and take the planet back.

As per the question, if they don't want to be there, an unhappy worker is an unproductive worker. If someone wants to volunteer to help me out by their own will, sure, but I wouldn't own them and they would be free to come and go as they please.

 

[Jute88]

On reflection I am sorry I was so riled up. I'm not sure why and clearly you and no one here (I hope) is pro-slavery. It's just a topic that makes me passionate.

It's okay, it's understandable that some topics evoke strong feelings sometimes =)

I tend to think there are certain moral milestones that once achieved (outlawing slavery, universal suffrage, gay marriage etc), we are obligated to defend. While I'm not saying we should vilify all these ancestors, I don't think we should let things that are morally abhorrent slide by with "that's just how things are".

That is a praiseworthy way of thinking about our (human race's) achievements.
But the problem with morality has always been is that it's different from culture to culture. I think cultures where you don't get to decide your husband (or wife) sounds crazy, but THEY understand the reasons for this kind of arrangement, and the majority goes along with it thinking it's morally a right thing to do. Or the eternal question of which is more important: the individual or the group?

As you mention. An Imperial Chinese Enuarch might wield enormous powers, but he was still a young boy at some point forced into involuntary genital mutilation. Romans might value a slave for their skills or craftmanship, but they were also a culture were having sex with your slaves was just a given, plus crucifixion, more genital mutliation and what not.

Not to mention, that sometimes the one who mutilated you was your own father who wanted you to have an honorable job in the forbidden city. Gives me the shivers.

But being a eunuch also meant, that you didn't have to read for exams for different bureocratic offices. Hell, some high ranking eunuchs didn't even know how to read. Chinese eunuchs also held onto their removed genitals in a jar, so that when they die and reincarnate, they would become a whole man again.
But yeah, overall, slavery usually created some interesting (and horrible) ways of ensuring the obedience of its merchandise.

I'm also aware that many of my behaviors now might be considered repugnant in 500 years too.

We're quite the bunch of scum and villainy.