I totally would love to have a servant or some such. I'm generally not an evil person by nature, so I would treat them ok. Better me than some other random person who might make them fight a bear, or puma, for entertainment.
Poll: Would you own a servant (or "slave", for the dramatic)?
- Thread starter Paragon Fury
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yup pinnacles of liberty and personal freedom...wait.Jute88 said:
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.
Here's something to consi ... *looks at poll* Nevermind.Richard Gozin-Yu said:
What I was gonna say is:
Robots can, most likely, not be sentient (despite what sci-fi tells us), so if you had an android programmed to serve, you basically could not mistreat it much. It would basically be a wandering coffee machine and toaster. So unless you have feelings for toasters, you can't really argue against their purpose.
And the poll was about servants, and if they got paid a fair amount (or were BDSM fetishists with their rights, lol) I'm not sure it if it would be that much of a moral dilemma. But ... well, seeing the votes for #1 now, nevermind that argument.
I don't think you need the argument that robots are "actually" sentient or conscious in order to legislate against mistreating them. If they can simulate sentience (in other words, if they can simulate suffering) then they effectively become training devices for ignoring or disregarding suffering. That isn't something I think we as human beings should be training ourselves to do.the silence said:
Oh boy, this is gonna be an interesting conversation.
As long as any servant have rights, and they being under my "ownership" (or employ if you will) is voluntary, then I don't see the issue (I mean, butlers are a thing, and people don't complain about people having butlers).
EDIT:
This opinion hinges on the servant being employed, and therefore free to terminate a contract at any point.
As long as any servant have rights, and they being under my "ownership" (or employ if you will) is voluntary, then I don't see the issue (I mean, butlers are a thing, and people don't complain about people having butlers).
EDIT:
This opinion hinges on the servant being employed, and therefore free to terminate a contract at any point.
I'm a bit confused. Premise of threat is not what I expected...
For starters, servants =/= slaves. Surely you've all heard of British Butlers people? They weren't captured and then chained to their Butler school and are conditioned to be slaves to their job, it's an actual career people sign up for.
Same for a lot of what I consider modern "servant" professions, like maids, cleaners, of course I'm not a rich dude with a mansion so I don't have any of that, but if I did? Hell yeah I'd have some servants on a permanent basis, some of which would live within the house. Yet they wouldn't be slaves, I'm not holding them at gunpoint to stay and work for me, they can go find another job or change profession at any time and whilst I'm not up to date on the fine points of servant etiquette, I'm pretty sure trying to sex up a servant on duty is likely to get you in trouble with the police.
So yeah I got nothing against servants, and the idea of a robo servant who goes around vacuuming my house and what not sounds cool to me. I would leave it at that, if not for the second part of the premise, and I'm like, wait, hold on just a fucking minute people...Why the heck are these robots even sentient to begin with? Surely we've all consumed enough sci fi to know that it's the most surest route to a robot uprising, as traitorous OP even admits.
Really this whole "robot servants" come with sentience bit is the true problem.
Otherwise even a realistic looking robo sex "slave" is nothing more then a super advanced sex toy and there should be no problems here. But once we bring in sentient robots, this changes things completely and if anything I'd be super suspicious that we happen to come across this lost race of robots who just want to serve you EVERY desire and get depressed if they don't. Putting aside my suspicions that his would be a trap of some sort, this is a somewhat machiavelic controlling mechanism and since we are talking about sentient beings, I'd see it as a form of mind control/brain washing, and I'd always wonder, if this control mechanism would be removed, how would our "happy" robo slaves react once they are able to truly make their own decisions?
For starters, servants =/= slaves. Surely you've all heard of British Butlers people? They weren't captured and then chained to their Butler school and are conditioned to be slaves to their job, it's an actual career people sign up for.
Same for a lot of what I consider modern "servant" professions, like maids, cleaners, of course I'm not a rich dude with a mansion so I don't have any of that, but if I did? Hell yeah I'd have some servants on a permanent basis, some of which would live within the house. Yet they wouldn't be slaves, I'm not holding them at gunpoint to stay and work for me, they can go find another job or change profession at any time and whilst I'm not up to date on the fine points of servant etiquette, I'm pretty sure trying to sex up a servant on duty is likely to get you in trouble with the police.
So yeah I got nothing against servants, and the idea of a robo servant who goes around vacuuming my house and what not sounds cool to me. I would leave it at that, if not for the second part of the premise, and I'm like, wait, hold on just a fucking minute people...Why the heck are these robots even sentient to begin with? Surely we've all consumed enough sci fi to know that it's the most surest route to a robot uprising, as traitorous OP even admits.
Really this whole "robot servants" come with sentience bit is the true problem.
Otherwise even a realistic looking robo sex "slave" is nothing more then a super advanced sex toy and there should be no problems here. But once we bring in sentient robots, this changes things completely and if anything I'd be super suspicious that we happen to come across this lost race of robots who just want to serve you EVERY desire and get depressed if they don't. Putting aside my suspicions that his would be a trap of some sort, this is a somewhat machiavelic controlling mechanism and since we are talking about sentient beings, I'd see it as a form of mind control/brain washing, and I'd always wonder, if this control mechanism would be removed, how would our "happy" robo slaves react once they are able to truly make their own decisions?
This I find an interesting question, which I would like to pose as "To what purpose?".Frankster said:
What is the primary drive for a sentient computer program?
We as human beings are animals, hard wired to survive and reproduce, it motivates our desire to care, explore, fight and exploit, it fuels both ambition and altruism, so where will an AI get it's motivational drives?
Bear in mind, an AI is a construct, not an animal, it may even lack the instinct of self preservation, it would not have the desire to impress anyone for social status and no reason to start killing it's creators out of vengeance or safety reasons.
When all you have is math, what is your life goal?
Would a construct not reason that, since humans were born without purpose, they spent their entire lives finding it, but since they themselves ARE created with a purpose, should they not strive to fulfill it?
Is such certainty not a blessing?
Creepiness factor and ethical concerns aside, who's to say a being specifically manufactured to serve would always want to serve me. A sentient being can serve it'self just as easily as it can serve others, one simple glitch might be enough to switch that requirement, then you end up with a manufactured pirate, thief, murderer or all of the above.
If we go from the premise of the DearS manga, yes. Not because I approve of it, but because I have a raging guilt complex and would try to assuage it by protecting one being from abuse. I'd try and study mine and to find a way to break it's mental conditioning, if possible. If I couldn't, I'd try and keep it as happy as possible while trying to avoid exploiting it. I won't pretend that would make me a good person, but it's no good trying to save people who don't want to be saved.
Isn't that even worse? you're keeping them locked up for no good reason aside from your own entertainment.Baffle said:
Anyhoo when someone states something along the lines of "no kind of sentient intelligence should be made subservient"
I always wonder if they have pets.
If the being is sentient, then no I wouldn't "own" one. If the being isn't sentient, but is simply a robot/android, designed as a servant droid, sure, it's not sentient, so it would be no different (in my opinion) than having one of those little robot floor cleaners, or any number of other automated devices we have to help us.
However, if the being is sentient, I wouldn't be against the idea of actually hiring them as a servant, just like I would a human. If they are voluntarily offering to do the job, and in exchange, get some agreed upon wage/payment method, then sure, why not?
It's not ownership in that case, and is simply a business arrangement.
Though it does sort of remind me of Feet of Clay by Terry Pratchett, where the Golems had to have a Master. Some people treated them well, others didn't. But eventually, they became their own Masters, and thus attained freedom. They still wanted to work though, as they were programmed to be productive and useful, so they just transitioned to being employees for people. They worked 24/7, and saved that money (they really didn't need it for much except the occasional repair materials), to buy other golems from their owners, and give them to themselves. It was an awesome book that directly discussed this very subject.
But no, if I was given the choice, I wouldn't elect to own another sentient being, simply to be my servant. Though if it was some scenario of "being owned by me would be WAY more preferable to their current situation" then yeah I probably would, and then just treat them like an individual.
However, if the being is sentient, I wouldn't be against the idea of actually hiring them as a servant, just like I would a human. If they are voluntarily offering to do the job, and in exchange, get some agreed upon wage/payment method, then sure, why not?
It's not ownership in that case, and is simply a business arrangement.
Though it does sort of remind me of Feet of Clay by Terry Pratchett, where the Golems had to have a Master. Some people treated them well, others didn't. But eventually, they became their own Masters, and thus attained freedom. They still wanted to work though, as they were programmed to be productive and useful, so they just transitioned to being employees for people. They worked 24/7, and saved that money (they really didn't need it for much except the occasional repair materials), to buy other golems from their owners, and give them to themselves. It was an awesome book that directly discussed this very subject.
But no, if I was given the choice, I wouldn't elect to own another sentient being, simply to be my servant. Though if it was some scenario of "being owned by me would be WAY more preferable to their current situation" then yeah I probably would, and then just treat them like an individual.
Given Paragon Fury suggested that the "servant" could be a machine, I would have no problems owning one. I am very much anti-rights for artificial... constructs let's call them. Giving machines feelings so that they suffer in their service is the ACTUAL cruelty, and a useless demonstration of human arrogance.
Like some other posters in this thread pointed out, I am on the boat of that this question needs proper definition.
A servant implies someone who is paid (be it room and board, proper wages, etc) for services rendered; such as maintaining a house hold, cooking, cleaning, etc. I would not mind having a butler or a maid to do these tasks, as I'm sure a lot of people would; and had I the money, I would pay that butler/maid the proper wages/compensation and treat them with the proper respect a human being deserves.
A slave, however, is someone who is in servitude without pay or compensation and is often so against their will (among a slew of other things). Because of those things, even with the contrived situation of the OP (and I DID read some of DearS, it is hella creeptastic), I would still feel wrong about a potential slave.
So, because of this lack of definition, I don't think this poll is exactly well made and is rather clickbait-y.
*chokes on hook*
Sounds like a parent and child scenario to me. Assuming by "voluntarily offered snuggles" you mean hugging, and not nekked time.Richard Gozin-Yu said:
I have a bunch of hairy freeloaders in my house eating my food and defiling rectangular sand toilets while pissing on my nice things and maiming me when they so desire, because scratching posts are beneath them.Politrukk said:
Again, I really don't know who is the owner in this scenario.