Print

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

[Louella Dougans]

it's what y'all are trying to imply, without breaking the forum rules and getting catacombed.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

But it is the only major element of any of the big four that can't be argued for in offline terms. You can make an argument for hedonism, censorship, tribalism, theocracy, corporate control, nationalism, surveillance, and every other potentially objectionable element of the four empires in EVE. But literal slavery no longer has any arguments in its favor in the offline world, so it makes Amarr de facto bad in many people's eyes.

There are real life arguments for slavery. In the 'civilized west' it's just not called slavery in those cases. It's not a point about arguments: It is bout emotion. Todays people are emotionally so against slavery, that they deny hearing arguments for it. Which isn't a bad thing: The bad thing is that they oftentimes don't notice that there is slavery under their noses, but just not called 'slavery'.

P.S.: And of veiling that leaving slavery behind wasn't a trivial thing and how great an achievement it is.

Edit: as for my own personal opinion, I think the entire topic is not only pointless but nonsensical. Nation-states are not moral actors. To say that a nation is 'evil' or 'good' is a misuse of terms.

I strongly agree! Not only that, it's going wildly through a jumble of 'nation-state', 'society' and 'the Amarr' (or any of the other three factions). None of these are moral actors, and to say they are 'evil' or 'good' is a misuse of terms, I agree.

[Jace]

There are real life arguments for slavery. In the 'civilized west' it's just not called slavery in those cases. It's not a point about arguments: It is bout emotion. Todays people are emotionally so against slavery, that they deny hearing arguments for it. Which isn't a bad thing: The bad thing is that they oftentimes don't notice that there is slavery under their noses, but just not called 'slavery'.

I used the phrase 'literal slavery' intentionally. Issues like wage slavery, colonization, imperialism, cultural oppression, and other concepts that could be compared to slavery are a different topic. Literal slavery is quite distinct and no longer has arguments for it in the modern world.

[Jace]

P.S.: And of veiling that leaving slavery behind wasn't a trivial thing and how great an achievement it is.

Oh, and I agree with this. Especially considering that it is still a thing, just not on the same scale. But the Russian mob absolutely has literal slaves.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

There are real life arguments for slavery. In the 'civilized west' it's just not called slavery in those cases. It's not a point about arguments: It is bout emotion. Todays people are emotionally so against slavery, that they deny hearing arguments for it. Which isn't a bad thing: The bad thing is that they oftentimes don't notice that there is slavery under their noses, but just not called 'slavery'.

I used the phrase 'literal slavery' intentionally. Issues like wage slavery, colonization, imperialism, cultural oppression, and other concepts that could be compared to slavery are a different topic. Literal slavery is quite distinct and no longer has arguments for it in the modern world.

I disagree: penal slavery has quite some proponents even in the western cultural hemisphere.

[Mizhara]

it's what y'all are trying to imply, without breaking the forum rules and getting catacombed.

I'm really not implying anything of the sort. Now if someone came along and said they consider slavery (as practiced in Eve) to be a morally and ethically justifiable thing by real life standards, then I'd say flat out they are morally and ethically bankrupt, Catacombs or no. I highly doubt I'm an example of someone dancing on that line, given my near permanent residence down there. What someone chooses to RP in Eve does not reflect on their real life morals and standards, unless you think I'd be a-okay with murdering several hundred thousand people over a religious/political issue.

I used the phrase 'literal slavery' intentionally. Issues like wage slavery, colonization, imperialism, cultural oppression, and other concepts that could be compared to slavery are a different topic. Literal slavery is quite distinct and no longer has arguments for it in the modern world.

This exactly. They're just not comparable and even if they were they'd remain morally and ethically horrifying. Human trafficking. Flat out slavery as seen in Dubai etc. Cultural Oppression and so called "wage slavery" are all exceedingly bad things but they're still separate terms describing different things.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

Yes, slavery is bad. I don't see, though, how not keeping people slaves makes e.g. deciding their fate through voluval any better. And why slavery should be the be-all-end-all when deciding ethical and/or moral value. It just doesn't follow that a society (that a society isn't the proper subject to be predicated with moral categories aside) that allows for the practice of slavery is automatically more evil than a society that decides the fate of all its members by a lottery and forces them to live by that fate.

[Jace]

I disagree: penal slavery has quite some proponents even in the western cultural hemisphere.

Those arguments are founded upon the idea that penal 'slavery' is not in fact slavery. That is entirely different than someone going 'yes, it is slavery but this is why it is okay..." which is what the Amarr do.

And as far as all of this making Amarr 'the most evil,' I agree that notion does not necessarily follow from what I am arguing (even after we ignore what we agreed upon earlier, that it is a misuse of terms). I am merely saying that it is the only faction that has a fundamental element of their society that is universally considered morally inexcusable. That doesn't mean that from a variety of perspectives the other societies may or may not blow it out of the water when they are compared - just that all of their elements hinge on perspective. The Amarr empire is the only one out of the four that has a fundamental element of itself that is considered a universal evil in contemporary society. That doesn't make it 'more evil' than the others, merely that it has an inarguably evil characteristic.

[Mizhara]

The voluval has the mitigating factor that it's supposedly an actual representation of a type of person. An exile mark is a mark of a person that would be a threat or a significant detriment to society, after the voluval ritual read the person (through genetics, neurology, whatever. Who really knows?) and tagged him/her as such. Whether or not that'd actually work, who knows? If we could accurately identify and screen out murderers, sociopaths etc, we quite probably would. It's not a lottery, it's a screening. It's also hardly "forcing" anyone but the exiles, as everyone else are still entirely free to make their own choices.

I'm sorry but it really doesn't even come anywhere near slavery. Even worse, generational slavery.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

I disagree: penal slavery has quite some proponents even in the western cultural hemisphere.

Those arguments are founded upon the idea that penal 'slavery' is not in fact slavery. That is entirely different than someone going 'yes, it is slavery but this is why it is okay..." which is what the Amarr do.

As I said: there are those arguments, they just argue it's actually not 'slavery'...

And as far as all of this making Amarr 'the most evil,' I agree that notion does not necessarily follow from what I am arguing (even after we ignore what we agreed upon earlier, that it is a misuse of terms). I am merely saying that it is the only faction that has a fundamental element of their society that is universally considered morally inexcusable. That doesn't mean that from a variety of perspectives the other societies may or may not blow it out of the water when they are compared - just that all of their elements hinge on perspective. The Amarr empire is the only one out of the four that has a fundamental element of itself that is considered a universal evil in contemporary society. That doesn't make it 'more evil' than the others, merely that it has an inarguably evil characteristic.

[/quote]
Yes: I see your point here. I don't think - as I already said - though, that this is a matter of argument (at least not in the restricted sense of argument that philosophy uses) but more a matter emotional and traditional factors. it is, I'd claim, in fact not the case that most people in western society are against slavery because they have been convinced by arguments to the position against slavery. Most people even think it absurd that one would have to give a rational argument against slavery: They consider it a brute fact that slavery is bad, they are raised and educated to find it abhorrent - few people question this default position.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

The voluval has the mitigating factor that it's supposedly an actual representation of a type of person. An exile mark is a mark of a person that would be a threat or a significant detriment to society, after the voluval ritual read the person (through genetics, neurology, whatever. Who really knows?) and tagged him/her as such. Whether or not that'd actually work, who knows? If we could accurately identify and screen out murderers, sociopaths etc, we quite probably would. It's not a lottery, it's a screening. It's also hardly "forcing" anyone but the exiles, as everyone else are still entirely free to make their own choices.

Wait, now. Even the Matari don't know how their supposed 'screening' works. For all intents and purposes, as much as anyone in New Eden knows, it could just as much be a lottery. That you go and accept - even more than accept: you buy into the justification that is given within the system of the voluval is quite, uh, disturbing to me.

Also, I hope really that you don't stand on the position that we should use screenings to pre-emptively convict people. In the society I live in people are convicted for actions and the best a screening could ever achieve is showing that there is more of a potential for someone to be a murderer or other criminal. I really hope you don't want to convict people for a higher than average potential to commit a crime! Sociopathy is a disorder, by the way. I hope you don't think that suffering from a disorder is incriminating as well? Also, if you read the voluval PF, you will see that by volouval usually certain careers are 'suggested' to people, certain positions are at the very least much more easier to reach, if you have the right voluval.

It's not like the Matari are a group of tribals not able to know better: Just as the Amarr they had several thousands of years to find out that sociopathy is a disorder and try to devise treatments, rather than simply using a 'screening' of which they don't know how it works, and expulse those people from society. And even if they knew how their screening worked and that would be no excuse, really.

I really can't seehow you are able to not only downplay how abhorrent a system is that is incriminating people before they actually comitted any criminal act, but even arguing that it is justified!

P.S.: Also,it doesn't really matter if the practice of the voluval is actually any better or worse a practice than slavery. The point is: It doesn't get any better a practice because one doesn't simultaneously practice slavery. How bad it is is independant of whether one also practices slavery or not. And in the end Lyn has it right: From a humanitarian viewpoint all four Factions in New eden are, in the end, not to be recommended as places for vacations, to put it mildly. They don't differ in that, really.

[Jace]

As I said: there are those arguments, they just argue it's actually not 'slavery'...

That is my point. My point is the admission that one is conducting slavery and that it is not morally objectionable to do so. That is what makes the Amarr de facto 'evil' to people. It is not so much the fact that they are holding slaves, but that they blatantly call them slaves, admit they are slaves, and say this is morally justifiable. If they were involved in 'slave-like' activities but did not call it that, you would have all sorts of people arguing their case.

The very fact that people defend contemporary slave-like institutions by arguing it is not slavery reinforces my point - it has become a universal that slavery is objectionable. So those that partake in it do not refer to it as 'slavery' because even they admit that universal. The Amarr do refer to it as slavery and consider that to be justifiable. That is the difference.

Yes: I see your point here. I don't think - as I already said - though, that this is a matter of argument (at least not in the restricted sense of argument that philosophy uses) but more a matter emotional and traditional factors. it is, I'd claim, in fact not the case that most people in western society are against slavery because they have been convinced by arguments to the position against slavery. Most people even think it absurd that one would have to give a rational argument against slavery: They consider it a brute fact that slavery is bad, they are raised and educated to find it abhorrent - few people question this default position.

I agree. The majority of people could not make an argument against slavery that does not equate to 'because.' I agree with you. It has reached that level of universality, which is part of my point of why the Amarr are seen as they are by players. It has truly become a universal view in contemporary society.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

It is not so much the fact that they are holding slaves, but that they blatantly call them slaves, admit they are slaves, and say this is morally justifiable. If they were involved in 'slave-like' activities but did not call it that, you would have all sorts of people arguing their case.

The very fact that people defend contemporary slave-like institutions by arguing it is not slavery reinforces my point - it has become a universal that slavery is objectionable. So those that partake in it do not refer to it as 'slavery' because even they admit that universal. The Amarr do refer to it as slavery and consider that to be justifiable. That is the difference.

I#d argue that it's a sign of using the word 'slavery' becoming inacceptable. Not slavery itself... It is the label that people find inacceptable, not the practice. One more problem with emotionally motivated stances agains 'slavery'.

I agree. The majority of people could not make an argument against slavery that does not equate to 'because.' I agree with you. It has reached that level of universality, which is part of my point of why the Amarr are seen as they are by players. It has truly become a universal view in contemporary society.

I agree that as soon as 'slavery' is used in any context but as sexual kink, people go: Evil. The problem is, many people don't think even a second about what slavery is and how they would notice it, if not labeled as such. And even if people covertly arguing for certain forms of slavery are called out on it, they just respond with: "No, I'm not arguing for slavery, that would be evil to enslave people! No, I'm arguing for 'leasing prisoner work'. Hey, do you think criminals should not do something productive for society, but that society should pay up for them?"

It's not slavery per se that people are opposing, but the use of the label is unfashinable and not to be used. As if the thing we referr to by the word vanishes with the use of the word...

[Mizhara]

Of course we don't use screening to convict people and nor would we. However, if we could with a high degree of certainty screen people for positive and negative attributes, we would use it quite close to how we already do things in real life. It's for all intents and purposes an aptitude test that shows what kind of person you are. If I could have one in my youth, I would have done it so fast you wouldn't even believe it. So many things I went for that I just wasn't suited for, other things I am extremely well suited for etc.

The extreme minority that are exiled (and are free to live their lives however they want after that, not enslaved or jailed) are most certainly a nasty mark in the "bad" category but there is just no comparing it to slavery. Even remotely. And you're quite right, there is really no need to formulate some formal argument against slavery at this point. It's that universally recognized as utterly bad.

It is in fact so bad that none of the other factions in Eve can compare in the "bad guy" contest, unless you count some of the pirate factions. Some of them.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

There is always the need to understand why you are against something. If you don't know why you are against it, you loose sight of what you are against. That people stopped to do so doesn't mean that there is no need. Just to make my position clear: I think that the position to be against anything without being able to give rational arguments for being against it, is always worse than being against it and being able to give rational arguments for why this is the right position. Else you open the door for all kinds of 'because we feel it to be bad' or 'because that is so' pseudo-arguments.

Also, as I added above: It's not about comaring one evial against the other. In fact I think there can a strong case be made that evils are not comparable quantitatively. Yet, to talk yourself into the idea that the three factions in EVE that are not the Amarr are any 'better', because they don't overtly practice slavery and have officialy no acceptance for it - well, that's quite weird.

it's amounting to say: It really doesn't matter how heineous the acts are that you commit - as long as it's not slavery, it's forgiveable.