Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Merdaneth]

Inflicting suffering and harm on another person in the pursuit of your own benefit isn't something I'm prepared to be subjective about.

False comparison, since slavery does not equal inflicting suffering and harm upon another person. (also, how do you go about breaking up with your girlfriend while she's still in love with you and doesn't want to break up?)

Ab-use, at its basic root, refers to use which is unintended or improper.  This is reasonable to understand in the sense of abuse of substances.  Prescription drugs can have a benefit for the user when taken in a certain way, but you can abuse prescription drugs in a manner that will cause harm.

Again, false comparison. Abuse is indeed (by definition) always improper. However, we are talking about slavery and not about abuse. Slavery does not equal abuse.

You seem to be making the fallacy: slavery = evil, and evil is objectively bad. I agree with you on the second part, not about the first.

Let me give you another comparison: maybe in 200 years the moral rule of society says that raising cattle for the benefit of killing and eating them without necessity and just because 'it tastes good' is utterly evil and that primitive societies (like ours) were engaged in immoral and depraved forms of slavery and wholesale slaughter of fellow sentient inhabitants of our planet. That cultural relativism too.

In fact, even in today's world there are many cultures which frown upon raising and slaughtering cows for meat (but not other animals). If you admitted you ate cow meat for your own pleasure, and they tell you that you are morally depraved for doing so, what would your response be? What if they told you that your society's relationship to cows is abusive and they can objectively determine that your society's treatment of them is bad for the cow's health....

Most people would likely respond in laughter. Most people would probably say 'don't be absurd, its just an animal'. Most people would respond with some variant of 'I don't go out of my way to hurt or abuse cows, its just their function in society to be raised as cattle and eaten', maybe a lot of people would admit never having given much thought about why we raise cows as cattle to be milked and slaughtered: 'I dunno, its just away it is and always has been' is a probable response.

The question would be: can you keep cattle and not abuse them? Of course you can. Most likely most people don't go out inflict hurt upon cattle ny more than they need to have the cattle perform their function in society. Are there people that use their position of power over them to inflict abuse upon cattle? Of course there are, but their behaviour is not indicative of the general moral compass of a cattle-raising society. I think a cow-herding society like the Masai is actually quite respectful of their cattle even though it is in their power to completely abuse their cows.

Cultural relativism says that having a society be ok with cows raised as cattle, butchered and eaten, but cats and dogs (or humans) not is quite arbitrary.

I'm quite ok with people having visceral reactions to the (fictional) slavery of EVE. I'm also ok with people thinking slavery is somehow objectively bad. People are horrible at cultural relativism. However, I will continue to disagree with them. And I believe lack of cultural relativism is one of the root causes of 'abuse'. Not because people that engage in said abuse are immoral, but because they actually believe (or raised to believe) that what they are doing is absolutely, objectively, unquestionably good.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

Now, I'd like to see that objective study in regards to ancient greek slavery.

The assumption here is, that slavery is by definition not mutually beneficial. Anyone having read Aristotle on slavery sees that he defines slavery as mutually beneficial. He, being a slave holder himself, is agreeing that keeping opf slaves is unjust, if it's not beneficial to the slave though.

And there are benefits for the slave in the Empire, e.g. the chance for rehabilitation into Amarr society as a citizen or the introduction into it as such.

I could go into RL examples where we accept threats of violence, curtailing of individual freedoms, isolation and all that. But just as others here, I don't really want to discuss RL politics here.

[Matariki Rain]

My reading of the discussion was that Gottii was expressing the strong hope that the others in this thread shared his--culturally relative--understanding that slavery in our contemporary real world is Not Okay.

In another strand of this discussion we're talking about other cultures which hold that it is okay, including both real-world cultures and fictional ones.

[Merdaneth]

And there are benefits for the slave in the Empire, e.g. the chance for rehabilitation into Amarr society as a citizen or the introduction into it as such.

I see slavery as merely a certain set of cultural norms regulating a particular form of dependent relationship between people.

There are many relationships in society where the balance of power between the partners in the relationship is unequal and not freely chosen. Marital relationship, parent-child relationships, warden-prisoner relationships, officer-grunt relationships, etc. etc.

In an age where getting pregnant was not really a choice, protecting women from getting pregnant without a 'partner' that was expected to help her give birth and raise children was very benificial. Even if it came at the cost of getting raped at times (within the marriage).

Having someone that inflicted damage on society removed from it temporarily and having others husband them (imprisonement) can be very benificial to society as a whole (if perhaps not to the prisoner).

And few question the benefit of the unequal and dependent relationship between children and those that raise them.

There is a law here which obligated everyone until the age of 16 to have full-time schooling. I can tell you that most children of 12-16 in modern western society would rather not have that (near daily) obligation visited upon them. However, its likely they will benefit from it. So can slave benefit from education given to them.

Is slavery an optimal means of providing benefits to such people? I don't think so. But that wasn't the question....

[Syylara/Yaansu]

Inflicting suffering and harm on another person in the pursuit of your own benefit isn't something I'm prepared to be subjective about.

False comparison, since slavery does not equal inflicting suffering and harm upon another person. (also, how do you go about breaking up with your girlfriend while she's still in love with you and doesn't want to break up?)

Can you provide me with an example of slavery whereby the subjugated is not harmed or denied the shared benefit of their own labor or expertise?  I can't think of a way to do it without some form of coercion involved in having another person acquiesce to the value of their efforts being extracted from them.

Breaking up with someone due to a loss of romantic interest isn't abuse.  Remaining in a relationship purely out of desire not to hurt the other person's feelings while not providing mutual or reciprocal emotional investment is actually the more harmful option (to both parties).

"Hurt feelings" while possibly resulting in similar physiological symptoms in the short-term is nowhere near the same offense as long-term mistreatment.  If someone descends into a serious depression over the end of a romantic partnership, there are probably other issues at work (in many cases, a symptom of prior abusive or neglectful behaviors).

Ab-use, at its basic root, refers to use which is unintended or improper.  This is reasonable to understand in the sense of abuse of substances.  Prescription drugs can have a benefit for the user when taken in a certain way, but you can abuse prescription drugs in a manner that will cause harm.

Again, false comparison. Abuse is indeed (by definition) always improper. However, we are talking about slavery and not about abuse. Slavery does not equal abuse.

You seem to be making the fallacy: slavery = evil, and evil is objectively bad. I agree with you on the second part, not about the first.

Again, provide an example of slavery that works without any abusive construct to enforce its continuation.

If I had meant to conclude it was evil, I would have used the word evil.

I'm basing it entirely on tangible, verifiable study and observation, not emotional appeals.

Let me give you another comparison: maybe in 200 years the moral rule of society says that raising cattle for the benefit of killing and eating them without necessity and just because 'it tastes good' is utterly evil and that primitive societies (like ours) were engaged in immoral and depraved forms of slavery and wholesale slaughter of fellow sentient inhabitants of our planet. That cultural relativism too.

In fact, even in today's world there are many cultures which frown upon raising and slaughtering cows for meat (but not other animals). If you admitted you ate cow meat for your own pleasure, and they tell you that you are morally depraved for doing so, what would your response be? What if they told you that your society's relationship to cows is abusive and they can objectively determine that your society's treatment of them is bad for the cow's health....

Most people would likely respond in laughter. Most people would probably say 'don't be absurd, its just an animal'. Most people would respond with some variant of 'I don't go out of my way to hurt or abuse cows, its just their function in society to be raised as cattle and eaten', maybe a lot of people would admit never having given much thought about why we raise cows as cattle to be milked and slaughtered: 'I dunno, its just away it is and always has been' is a probable response.

The question would be: can you keep cattle and not abuse them? Of course you can. Most likely most people don't go out inflict hurt upon cattle ny more than they need to have the cattle perform their function in society. Are there people that use their position of power over them to inflict abuse upon cattle? Of course there are, but their behaviour is not indicative of the general moral compass of a cattle-raising society. I think a cow-herding society like the Masai is actually quite respectful of their cattle even though it is in their power to completely abuse their cows.

Cultural relativism says that having a society be ok with cows raised as cattle, butchered and eaten, but cats and dogs (or humans) not is quite arbitrary.

I'm quite ok with people having visceral reactions to the (fictional) slavery of EVE. I'm also ok with people thinking slavery is somehow objectively bad. People are horrible at cultural relativism. However, I will continue to disagree with them. And I believe lack of cultural relativism is one of the root causes of 'abuse'. Not because people that engage in said abuse are immoral, but because they actually believe (or raised to believe) that what they are doing is absolutely, objectively, unquestionably good.

This all depends on your definition of consciousness, sentience or even sapience, which I'll admit is an interesting philosophical discussion that can take off on an entirely different tangent.

But that's a whole different conversation than treatment of one another within the same species.  It is interesting to note that a great deal of rationalization offered for slavery throughout human history has revolved around determining those subjected to it being deemed inferior in the attributes discussed above, yet only the most superficial bio-genetic differences can be actually observed.

Don't get me wrong, I think there's a wide range of diversity in the realm of cultural and societal beliefs in the absence of objective, observable facts.  But I don't think that just because a large group of people "decide" that x is true or y is false makes it so.  There are behaviors that result in real physiological damage to a person and there are behaviors that result in perceived emotional upset. 

[Merdaneth]

My reading of the discussion was that Gottii was expressing the strong hope that the others in this thread shared his--culturally relative--understanding that slavery in our contemporary real world is Not Okay.

There is a difference between 'not optimal', 'not ok', 'objectively bad' and 'evil'. I would say that slavery in our contemporary world is probably not optimal, but only very rarely evil.

In fact, looking at it from a slaver's perspective, I truly believe that we can consider the position of children in our modern society as a form of slavery. Slavery for the benefit of the child, and with all the best intentions, but slavery nonetheless. We might not have the same visceral reaction to the position of a child, but the position is there nonetheless.

Also, plenty of examples of societies who physically mutilate their children (circumcisions come to mind) unnecessarily as a cultural norm. Are those people evil? Are they objectively bad? Most likely not, they've merely chosen a non-optimal way of dealing with some common problems in human societies.

I share Gotti's understanding that most people in modern western society 'see/feel' slavery as evil. I'm not agreeing with his assessment that people/societies who engage in slavery are evil.

That was part of the core argument. The whole urge of condemning (religious) slavery as objectively evil in EVE as influenced to by our modern-day sensibilities and visceral reactions. And how such sensibilities and the responses they generate made it sometimes hard to RP slavery in EVE.

My point is: can you be just a upstanding, moral regular citizen and keep slaves yourselves or condone slavery? Of course you can, in fact, it would be difficult to for a society to maintain its balance if most people aren't trying to 'do good' while keeping slaves.

And I still believe its 'the viscera' who are the major troublemakers here. Mass murder barely raises an eyebrow in EVE, while religious dogmatic conformist slavery invites slews of 'thou must be evil' fingerpointing.

[Syylara/Yaansu]

My point is: can you be just a upstanding, moral regular citizen and keep slaves yourselves or condone slavery? Of course you can, in fact, it would be difficult to for a society to maintain its balance if most people aren't trying to 'do good' while keeping slaves.

Well, this points out an issue of false dichotomy or hasty generalization on the part of those making the challenge.

Everyone has various attributes of character that neither wholly condemn or uplift them on their own.

I can both agree and disagree with various behaviors despite them being present in the same person.

Someone can engage in generous philanthropy while simultaneously colluding with others to dominate natural resources and manipulate social institutions.  I don't think anyone has ever reached being an absolute paragon of virtue or servant of vice.

That's why I've focused mainly on behaviors and not people in this discussion :9.

[Merdaneth]

Can you provide me with an example of slavery whereby the subjugated is not harmed or denied the shared benefit of their own labor or expertise?  I can't think of a way to do it without some form of coercion involved in having another person acquiesce to the value of their efforts being extracted from them.

Define 'harm'. If you work for a boss, you don't get full benefit of your own labor or expertise. You only get what is agreed on. Excess profit goes wholly to those who own the company. There is no need for coercion of any kind, yet you can be discarded after making the company a profit without a second thought. This is quite common in society, and hardly indicative of slavery (or even something we consider abusive).

My favorite example of subjugation is children. They are legally (and practically) subjugated for years. And yes, coercion is used on them. A lot. Unfortunately, most people's visceral reaction to this comparison is 'no way! that's just wrong!', however, when just looking at the subjugation aspect, it very much like slavery. Look at it objectively, and you can see the similarities. And yes, its a form of slavery that mostly goes fine due to many built-in checks and balances.

Breaking up with someone due to a loss of romantic interest isn't abuse.  Remaining in a relationship purely out of desire not to hurt the other person's feelings while not providing mutual or reciprocal emotional investment is actually the more harmful option (to both parties).

I didn't say it was abuse. I merely pointed out that in such a case you will inflict harm upon a person purely for your own benefit. It's an cultural accepted way of inflicting harm upon another. However, if you are 'married' in our culture, suddenly you are much more likely to be considered 'immoral' for abandoning your partner and mroe likely to suffer societal retribution, while the actual harm inflicted to your partner may not be different at all. My point was: you gave a definition which was supposed to fit a situation which could objectively be termed 'bad', I countered with an example which fit your definition but you wouldn't think of as bad, thereby invalidating that definition.

But that's a whole different conversation than treatment of one another within the same species.  It is interesting to note that a great deal of rationalization offered for slavery throughout human history has revolved around determining those subjected to it being deemed inferior in the attributes discussed above, yet only the most superficial bio-genetic differences can be actually observed.

Of course. Such rationalizations help people against (quite natural) feelings of empathy. You get that in war a lot too. It is actually quite hard to get people to physically go out and hurt and kill each other without an immediate threat. It quite helpful to try sketch your opponents as different and less for any kind of violence to occur. Same thing with men and women (women have been sketched as 'less' than men for millenia now), just because the men have some additional muscle? Quite arbitraty.

My point with the examples is that to draw the line at a 99.96% genetic match to not enslave others, and not at a 99.2% genetic match is quite arbitrary however you view it. And that is despite and visceral feelings you have. The lines drawn are not based on 'abuse' but on very practical concerns which can have arbitraty solutions.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

Also, I think it's quite objectionable to classify physiological damage as something objective, while dismissing psychological damage as merely 'perceived emotional upset', implying that it's any less objectively damaging or real.

As for an example where the slave wasn't harmed or denied the shared benefit of their own labor or expertise? You ever heard about the tironian notes? They've been even named after the slave who developed them, allegedly: Marcus Tullius Tiro?

[Gottii]

[Thats just it.  I dont think you can rationally define slavery as anything other than abuse. 

Slavery is bad.  Its abusive. Always.  By definition.  There is no "good" slavery. Or even neutral.  Treating people like property and forcing them to do what you want is morally wrong.  Always.

Can we all agree on that?  I mean, as real life people.

I completely disagree. Completely and utterly.

You fail to see how much your opinion if formed by fairly random assortment of cultural values. For some people abortion is murder and utterly evil, for some not at all. For some people homosexuality is utterly evil, others feel completely neutral about it. I have had people tell me that they thought that parents that hit their children are utterly twisted and evil.

I could be completely true that in 100 years people will think mandatory schooling is utterly evil, or conscription, or allowing people to buy and carry firearms. Hell, in 100 years people might think us idiots for having people that are absolutely unsuited an ill-qualified make and raise children.

You yourself are making a good point that many people nowadays are slowly considering (dogmatic) religion to be evil. That there can be no 'good' (dogmatic) religion.

Understand cultural relativism.

It those moral judgements shift as the wind does.

Fine, show me an example of non-abusive racial slavery. (or any slavery for that matter)

Not just throwing the words "cultural relativism" but showing me an actual clear cut example of a positive form of slavery from one of these various cultures. 

[Gottii]

I share Gotti's understanding that most people in modern western society 'see/feel' slavery as evil. I'm not agreeing with his assessment that people/societies who engage in slavery are evil.

I never said a slaver or slave holder had to be evil.  Not once.  You obviously didnt read my statements very thoroughly.

In fact my exact words were

"Does this mean your can character be a morally (keep in mind, that would mean he would embody Amarrian morals) upright, thoughtful, kind, even benevolent in thought and motivation and still allow/participate in such an evil institution?    Of course it does"

So Im actually saying you can play a morally upright, thoughtful, kind, benevolent slave holder who takes part in an evil institution.  Even an institution we "feel" is evil.

I said its impossible to be a "classic good guy" and play an Amarrian slaver.  Then I went on and said that its impossible to be one of the"good guys" and play an EVE character in any meaningful sense.

Its not about trying to play a good or evil character.  Its about trying to play a nuanced and realistic character.   

[Syylara/Yaansu]

And there are benefits for the slave in the Empire, e.g. the chance for rehabilitation into Amarr society as a citizen or the introduction into it as such.

I see slavery as merely a certain set of cultural norms regulating a particular form of dependent relationship between people.

There are many relationships in society where the balance of power between the partners in the relationship is unequal and not freely chosen. Marital relationship, parent-child relationships, warden-prisoner relationships, officer-grunt relationships, etc. etc.

In an age where getting pregnant was not really a choice, protecting women from getting pregnant without a 'partner' that was expected to help her give birth and raise children was very benificial. Even if it came at the cost of getting raped at times (within the marriage).

Having someone that inflicted damage on society removed from it temporarily and having others husband them (imprisonement) can be very benificial to society as a whole (if perhaps not to the prisoner).

And few question the benefit of the unequal and dependent relationship between children and those that raise them.

There is a law here which obligated everyone until the age of 16 to have full-time schooling. I can tell you that most children of 12-16 in modern western society would rather not have that (near daily) obligation visited upon them. However, its likely they will benefit from it. So can slave benefit from education given to them.

Is slavery an optimal means of providing benefits to such people? I don't think so. But that wasn't the question....

In this arena, the question becomes: what justifies the determination of one party being deemed "dependent."

Just to address your examples,

Marriage: If the arrangement is not freely chosen, then in this case I do see it as another form of slavery or subjugation.  Usually this is seen in societies where one of the two sexes is seen as inferior with all manner of condescending rationalizations offered.  While there is high correlation between this paradigm and other abuses, the tipping point for me starts at the basic act of whether both partners entered willingly or if one (or both) were refused free association.

Parent-child: Children are in many ways incapable of fully functioning and sustaining themselves without assistance.  Different cultures have different views on when this changes (and different expectations on how to prepare them for this).  Infants and toddlers are dependent for basic sustenance and physical well-being, children for safety and security, adolescents enter a period of turbulence in emotional growth and judgment.  I think the most deviation occurs in the last period, some preferring to retain "control" through young adulthood, others preferring to let them loose at that point and rely on a more distant "guidance" from there.  The legal requirement for schooling is based on the idea that a) society as a whole benefits from educated people and b) without education in a society where it is prevalent, a person may be far less capable of meeting their basic needs (can't get a job that provides the minimal necessities of sustaining life).  Obviously, there's a lot of variables that can differ here.

Warden-prisoner: Assuming the prisoner was fully aware of the laws in effect, they freely chose to enter into this relationship by breaking them.  Again, room for debate arises out of whether the laws themselves were aligned towards common societal interests or designed to extract conformity for the benefit of a few (imprisonment for voicing a dissenting opinion, political prisoners, etc).  This could also be the result of being captured in an armed conflict, which I'll expand upon below.

Officer-grunt: Again, a relationship that may or may not be the result of a voluntary agreement.  In an all-volunteer military, you chose to enter into this relationship from the very beginning.  Also, depending on the military in question, there may be many benefits you enjoy as a result of this association.  In the U.S. you can receive assistance in pursuing higher education, an honorable discharge looks great on a job application, you have the camaraderie and respect of fellow service members and access to social services available exclusively to veterans.  On the other end of the spectrum would be a draft or impressment-based military that offers nothing in return.  Which would basically be a form of slavery in which you were expected to place yourself at great personal risk without any reciprocal benefit or compensation.  There's probably some grey areas in there where some threatening external force that would be detrimental to society exists and able members of the community are required to submit to service (WW2, for example).  While it could be argued that free association was removed, at least in this case some benefit exists for those who are required to participate (assuming the threat was real and not manufactured or over-stated).  Also in this specific example, while retroactively put into place, many additional benefits were given to those who served in the conflict and was partly responsible for a further increase in overall societal well-being (benefits given to veterans and their families helped build the middle class in America).

So there seems to be some overall guidelines here:
1) Is the relationship a result of free-association or not
2) Do all parties to the relationship receive benefits at least partially consistent with their relative efforts
3) What dependencies exist that justify one party existing in a lesser role

If one party has no say in their status, can't be shown to have any real dependency in the absence of coercive force or societal whim and remains limited in their share of communal wealth while doing the bulk of the actual value-increasing work required to sustain that wealth...

I'd call that slavery based on definable, measurable terms.

[Lyn Farel]

Fine, show me an example of non-abusive racial slavery. (or any slavery for that matter)

Not just throwing the words "cultural relativism" but showing me an actual clear cut example of a positive form of slavery from one of these various cultures.

I think that his point was actually that not denying that slavery is abusive, but that a lot of other things can be as well, that us - with our cultural relativism - do see as inherently "good". Thus, the emphasis on the good/evil (completely subjective terms tainted by an absence of cultural relativism) vs abuse (whatever the definition we give it is). Actually I think that would you have not used the terms "evil" and "good" we would not even be having this discussion.

Like for example myself finding utterly unethical the notion of capital punishement or civilians carrying guns (i could say I consider these evil if i wanted), while other societies/cultures will look at me, calling me crazy for thinking so.

[Gottii]

Like for example myself finding utterly unethical the notion of capital punishement or civilians carrying guns (i could say I consider these evil if i wanted), while other societies/cultures will look at me, calling me crazy for thinking so.

Heres the problem Lyn.  Youre not a slaver or a supporter of real life slavery, right?  I mean, Im not threatening your culture, am I?  Im talking about a culture in a make-believe universe filled with spaceships that swim.  Lets ease off the cultural umbrage here a bit.

I mean, its not like me saying "slavery is an evil institution" might actually reflect your real life values or culture, right?  Which is different than the positions you mentioned, which are held by some people out there.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

Amarrian slavery is as much racially motivated as the US penal system. One problem here is that people measure Amarrian slavery by applying their very own definition of slavery and judging Amarr according to it, instead of taking the Amarrian definition of slavery and look at it from this angle.


This aside here's my beef with one-half of what is happening here:

It seems to me that I've been told now multiple times that playing an Amarr who's portraying the practice and institution of slavery as something that can be good and in certain cases is good is a case of 'U r doin it wrong!'.

The reasons brought up so far are:
1. Historically was never good.
2. Slavery is evil.
3. Slavery is abuse is evil.

So, while I object to point 1. to 3. even if they all were true, these are not sufficient reasons to justify the call of "U r doin it wrong!". Even if Slavery is objectively evil by necessity, it doesn't follow in the least that Amarr can't practice it in a way that makes it appear as acceptable and good as possible.

The only other objection to that, which I've heard so far, is the following: "In fact, to try to make slavery palatable is and certainly unrealistic and maybe even a tad bit unethical."

Unrealistic is it only in so far as slavery is by definition evil. There are definitions of slavery though that are neutral to morality and they are perfectly fine in so far as they can be used to demarcate the practice and thus who is a slave and who a slaveholder.

So, is it unethical to play an Amarr who makes slavery palatable unethical? Is it impossible to make it palatable, if it's unethical to do so? And should one refrain from playing someone portraying slavery as palatable, because it's unethical to portray slavery like that?

I really think not if one is allowed to play other people who're doing unethical things. There's the again and again cited 'grimdark'. EVE isn't nice and clean and people do unethical things. I don't see why portraying slavery as palatable shouldn't be among those if it is unethical - as it is logically quite possible.

Thus, I conclude that there are no reasons that necessiate to think of the Empire as a place where slavery implies by necessity abuse of the slave or where the majority of the slaves are abused or where slavery is not portrayed and practiced in a way that portrays it as being not unethical but ethical.