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

[Fox12]

No. I wouldn't. Here's an ethical delima: is it any less monstrous to own a slave if you've programmed their brain to "enjoy" slavery? Is it really their choice to be a slave, if you've programmed them to think that way? Or does it, in fact, make it worse, since your condemning them to a life of misery if they don't follow your instructions? I mean, I get that its an otaku waifu simulator about submissive women, where the reader doesn't have to feel awful about "owning" men/women, but it doesn't make it better.

There are sections of the bible that claim that God formed us out of clay, and that he can do whatever he wants with us. And that we should praise him for it. And that we can't be complete unless we worship him for making us slaves, and cover ourselves in ashes and sack cloth. It's awful. Why would I do that to another sentient being? Or as someone else once put it:
https://youtu.be/iu-EbjwSvq4?t=1m48s

Furthermore I-

Wait a minute. Is that a- a dog collar?

Spoiler

 

[CrystalShadow]

This is a pretty troublesome question when you start to look at androids and the like...

It can almost certainly be guaranteed that any android specifically designed for any given purpose wants to perform it's function.
A rather absurd example is Kryten from Red Dwarf.
Convincing him NOT to act like a slave was incredibly difficult, but even having accomplished that, convincing him NOT to basically do all your domestic duties for you anyway is almost a lost cause.

A less absurd example would be the film AI - Ignore the main character, and look at the other androids...
Yeah, you can see the issue here I hope?

The trouble with this is...
Well...
Ultimately it pokes uncomfortably on that line between slavery and a tool.

I have no problem using a hammer, but that isn't in any way intelligent.
Right now, I'm using a computer. This already is a much blurrier line, because although not intelligent in a way that we would define it for a living thing, the very purpose of a computer is effectively that it is a tool designed to do some of my thinking for me.

Is my computer my slave? Or merely a tool. An object I can do with as I see fit?

I remember a webcomic which was framed in terms of one of those 'tested to destruction' videos you sometimes see...
(unfortunately, finding it back is near to impossible. Thanks internet. XD)

The comic was set in the future where there were intelligent androids, but they were clearly treated as 'things' (specifically, for this example, the way you'd treat a computer, or your smartphone or the like).

So... This android gets turned on, introduces itself to it's new master (As it's programmed to do, clearly), who appears to be talking to camera, and narrating something about the features of this 'new model'...

... Before taking out a sledgehammer and proceeding to smash her, while commenting on the durability of the 'new model'.
... As she begs him to stop...

Yeah.

Anyway, the point is, it's a really blurry line when it comes to an artificially created servant.
Because, in a manner of speaking, we all already use those all the time without a second thought, there is clearly more to it than that.

When does it become wrong?
When does it go from being a tool, which you are free to use and abuse any way you see fit, to being something whose welfare you are expected to consider (think about horses, and dogs and animals kept for a purpose, not just as pets), to something that is morally questionable to treat as an unpaid servant?

It's really such a messed up question.

It's equally messed up when you look at the history of slavery and the justifications given for why it was acceptable to keep certain groups of people as slaves in the first place.

Because you can be sure that if you have slaves of some kind, you will almost certainly come up with a reason why it's OK to treat your slaves however it is you are treating them...

 

[FirstNameLastName]

That's actually an interesting question; would it be morally permissible to create people who enjoy working and following orders? On the surface it seems horrible due to the slavery angle, but if they are specifically designed to enjoy the work then would it still be cruel? After all, someone has to do the jobs, so would it not be better if the work is done by those who will enjoy it, rather than those who won't? It gets especially complicated when sex is involved, since the question of consent gets rather murky when they were specifically designed to say yes.

Although ...

"Servent" eh?

Is this about fucking submissive anime gi... oh, yep, there we go, it's about fucking submissive anime girls.

...

As the saying goes, "don't judge a book by its cover", and while it might be wrong of me to make unsubstantiated claims about the content of this story, something about the way every single piece of official art for DearS is some variation of "weird looking anime girl wearing outlandish fetish clothing and a dog collar" tells me this isn't exactly some nuanced take on the subject. What's more, most of the small handful of reviews from anime fans I read on some site certainly indicated that this is pretty much wank material, and has precisely nothing to say about the moral ambiguities of genetic engineering and quasi-slavery.

It seems the only idea it puts for is "hey, wouldn't it be just be sooooo hot if an alien ship crash landed and it was full of hot slave chicks who live to fuck us while doing all our chores?"

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

What in satan's name is wrong with her legs and face??? Has she been in the transporter machine at the same time as a grasshopper/praying mantis?? Put her out of her misery, please! Euthanasia is the kindest action left!

No slaves or servants for me please. I like to do things properly and i'm sure they have better ways of living their life. Plus i'd have to teach them useless information when i can just do everything myself, the way i want to. Set them free! I'm sure theyll fare pretty well out in the wild if you gave them all guns and a fond slap on the buttocks to send them on their way.

 

[Paragon Fury]

Twenty people here want to own slaves. That's pretty fucked up.

That's fucked up? As of now, 13 people think I need to be stopped! That's like, 12 more people than I was planning on having to fight while making this poll!

 

[CrystalShadow]

Twenty people here want to own slaves. That's pretty fucked up.

That's fucked up? As of now, 13 people think I need to be stopped! That's like, 12 more people than I was planning on having to fight while making this poll!

To be fair, it's the only poll option available if you don't feel like giving a clear yes/no answer is appropriate. ;p

 

[Leg End]

Well, you're talking about beings that are created for that purpose. At that point you have to ask, what is free will and if someone is hardcoded to a specific mindset, is it wrong to prevent them doing what they desire if that desire still follows something such as the Non-Aggression Principle?

If it was creation on demand, no I wouldn't. If they already exist, bite the bullet and give them as much space for free will as possible. This thread is giving me some Binary Domain type vibes for some reason.

I think a better question is, would you own/use a Meeseeks Box?

Spoiler: And my response to you Para.

 

[StormShaun]

That's fucked up? As of now, 13 people think I need to be stopped! That's like, 12 more people than I was planning on having to fight while making this poll!

How dare they!
They must also be against large breasts and harems.

I have no idea what clearly superior and clever individuals or groups would do such a thing.
You know what? We should hang up the white flag right now, give up, and give in to the force of justice.



My usual humourous and bias dialogue aside.

No.
I couldn't "own" another human and force them to work for me. That would just hang on my conscience.

Now if it was "servant" as in, they have rights, and I pay them in one way or another. Well, if I had the means, sure. I could imagine that centuries back, there were rich/high class people/bachelors that had servants, but paid them by giving them a place to life. Heck, I'm sure there are even romance stories that come out of it.[sub][sub][sub]No harems though.[/sub][/sub][/sub]

Although this is a hard question.
What happens if you throw things that exist outside of "humanity" into the mix?
Like aliens, robots, and the such.
I'm sure I'd say no, but the question would become a lot greyer for us.

EDIT: But then again.
If slavery is a somewhat common thing, and lets say you have the means or money to buy them to essentially free them. I don't see that as a bad thing.

 

[BodomBeachChild]

Of course I do. I'm Amarrian after all!

 

[OreoDoublestuff]

While i wouldn't support programming someone's brain from birth to be a slave, as someone that aspires to consensual slavery to my Sir i support it as a choice for someone naturally submissive. i personally derive a great deal of satisfaction from serving and would be quite dejected if someone were to tell me i was legally unable to do so.

It's all a matter of perspective, if a person is naturally inclined toward submission and actively chooses it, then it would be cruel to refuse them. Also, abuse and slavery do not have to go hand in hand; it's a question of consent.

 

[-Dragmire-]

This is a pretty troublesome question when you start to look at androids and the like...

It can almost certainly be guaranteed that any android specifically designed for any given purpose wants to perform it's function.
A rather absurd example is Kryten from Red Dwarf.
Convincing him NOT to act like a slave was incredibly difficult, but even having accomplished that, convincing him NOT to basically do all your domestic duties for you anyway is almost a lost cause.

A less absurd example would be the film AI - Ignore the main character, and look at the other androids...
Yeah, you can see the issue here I hope?

The trouble with this is...
Well...
Ultimately it pokes uncomfortably on that line between slavery and a tool.

I have no problem using a hammer, but that isn't in any way intelligent.
Right now, I'm using a computer. This already is a much blurrier line, because although not intelligent in a way that we would define it for a living thing, the very purpose of a computer is effectively that it is a tool designed to do some of my thinking for me.

Is my computer my slave? Or merely a tool. An object I can do with as I see fit?

I remember a webcomic which was framed in terms of one of those 'tested to destruction' videos you sometimes see...
(unfortunately, finding it back is near to impossible. Thanks internet. XD)

The comic was set in the future where there were intelligent androids, but they were clearly treated as 'things' (specifically, for this example, the way you'd treat a computer, or your smartphone or the like).

So... This android gets turned on, introduces itself to it's new master (As it's programmed to do, clearly), who appears to be talking to camera, and narrating something about the features of this 'new model'...

... Before taking out a sledgehammer and proceeding to smash her, while commenting on the durability of the 'new model'.
... As she begs him to stop...

Yeah.

Anyway, the point is, it's a really blurry line when it comes to an artificially created servant.
Because, in a manner of speaking, we all already use those all the time without a second thought, there is clearly more to it than that.

When does it become wrong?
When does it go from being a tool, which you are free to use and abuse any way you see fit, to being something whose welfare you are expected to consider (think about horses, and dogs and animals kept for a purpose, not just as pets), to something that is morally questionable to treat as an unpaid servant?

It's really such a messed up question.

It's equally messed up when you look at the history of slavery and the justifications given for why it was acceptable to keep certain groups of people as slaves in the first place.

Because you can be sure that if you have slaves of some kind, you will almost certainly come up with a reason why it's OK to treat your slaves however it is you are treating them...

Imagine if your computer suddenly became self aware and merely wanted to continue to work as it usually does. Could you bring yourself to; take it apart to upgrade/fix it, turn it off, even use it at all?

 

[Souplex]

I would make it clear they have the right to refuse any request except for in matters of life and death. I would also make it clear that they are allowed to leave my service at any time if they so choose.
At that point it's not slavery, it's agreeing to help someone out. I agree to help people all the time, I don't temporarily become their slave by helping them.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Only if it was a mono-task Servitor, and its task was blowing me.

Outside of that, nah, I wouldn't bother.

 

[CrystalShadow]

This is a pretty troublesome question when you start to look at androids and the like...

It can almost certainly be guaranteed that any android specifically designed for any given purpose wants to perform it's function.
A rather absurd example is Kryten from Red Dwarf.
Convincing him NOT to act like a slave was incredibly difficult, but even having accomplished that, convincing him NOT to basically do all your domestic duties for you anyway is almost a lost cause.

A less absurd example would be the film AI - Ignore the main character, and look at the other androids...
Yeah, you can see the issue here I hope?

The trouble with this is...
Well...
Ultimately it pokes uncomfortably on that line between slavery and a tool.

I have no problem using a hammer, but that isn't in any way intelligent.
Right now, I'm using a computer. This already is a much blurrier line, because although not intelligent in a way that we would define it for a living thing, the very purpose of a computer is effectively that it is a tool designed to do some of my thinking for me.

Is my computer my slave? Or merely a tool. An object I can do with as I see fit?

I remember a webcomic which was framed in terms of one of those 'tested to destruction' videos you sometimes see...
(unfortunately, finding it back is near to impossible. Thanks internet. XD)

The comic was set in the future where there were intelligent androids, but they were clearly treated as 'things' (specifically, for this example, the way you'd treat a computer, or your smartphone or the like).

So... This android gets turned on, introduces itself to it's new master (As it's programmed to do, clearly), who appears to be talking to camera, and narrating something about the features of this 'new model'...

... Before taking out a sledgehammer and proceeding to smash her, while commenting on the durability of the 'new model'.
... As she begs him to stop...

Yeah.

Anyway, the point is, it's a really blurry line when it comes to an artificially created servant.
Because, in a manner of speaking, we all already use those all the time without a second thought, there is clearly more to it than that.

When does it become wrong?
When does it go from being a tool, which you are free to use and abuse any way you see fit, to being something whose welfare you are expected to consider (think about horses, and dogs and animals kept for a purpose, not just as pets), to something that is morally questionable to treat as an unpaid servant?

It's really such a messed up question.

It's equally messed up when you look at the history of slavery and the justifications given for why it was acceptable to keep certain groups of people as slaves in the first place.

Because you can be sure that if you have slaves of some kind, you will almost certainly come up with a reason why it's OK to treat your slaves however it is you are treating them...

Imagine if your computer suddenly became self aware and merely wanted to continue to work as it usually does. Could you bring yourself to; take it apart to upgrade/fix it, turn it off, even use it at all?

Yeah, I'd have a hard time knowing what to do with that.
I mean, for one thing, I have yet to own a computer that is stable enough not to require restarting semi-regularly.
But if it was self-aware, and could make that fact known to me...

I'd probably think twice about turning it off, that's for sure...
If it wanted to continue doing what it's always been doing for me, I guess I'd be OK with that?

It'd be such a weird situation though that I'd be at a loss as for what to do.
It also would raise a lot of questions.
What actually happens if I turn it off? Would that be akin to killing it, or will it just go right back to what it was doing before I turned it off, and thus make it more like sleep, or perhaps a coma?
Following on from that, if turning it off isn't effectively fatal (it's going to turn off sooner or later no matter what, because I don't have it attached to a UPS, I have power failures roughly every 1-2 years, and there's basically no practical way to transfer it from one power source to another while it's still running...)

Anyway, following on from that, What is the nature of what is making it self-aware? Is it purely software? Or is there an aspect to it dependent on that specific hardware combination?
If losing power isn't fatal to it, what would a hardware upgrade do? (and does it matter which parts are replaced? Eg, could I replace the GPU without issue, but replacing the hard drive and CPU would irrevocably alter it?)

So many questions...

Then again, I have considered some of them before. Because of an Interest in AI programming, and feeling somewhat responsible for what I would be doing in creating AI...

The difference is, I can reasonably safely assume that if well-designed, any AI I could come up with is purely software, and can be paused, saved, loaded, copied, etc. with little long-term direct consequences to it's well-being.

BUT, I have considered... If one of my AI's turned out to be sentient, would it be ethical to shut it down, even temporarily?
Given that it takes memory and processing time to keep the AI running, what responsibility do I have towards it to provide it with both to keep it running?

And when considering something you created yourself, you get into the 'god' dilemma.
(This isn't really a question of whether there is a god or not, but the practical considerations of effectively 'being' 'god' to some other kind of creature, by virtue of having created it.)
Having created an intelligent, sentient being of some kind, do I have any responsibility to design it in such a way that it can have something akin to an afterlife?
Or is that irrelevant?

Is it OK to design such a system knowing that at some point it will have some kind of failure, and to just let it fail and cease to exist? Or should I design things to try and keep it as safe as possible?
What of AI which are obsolete? Is it OK to just 'kill' them? Turn them offline forever? Or... Even outright delete them completely?

If not, assuming they literally serve no further purpose, how much runtime and memory do you expect to be able to devote to keeping them running anyway, even though they are no longer necessary?

It's terrifying, and that isn't even really directly about 'slavery' anymore... XD

 

[Combustion Kevin]

A lot of people also liken slavery to, which did happen, but not as much as people usually think.

Historically speaking, unless you went out and took prisoners yourself (and most people didn't) your slave was bought, meaning they cost money, money that'd be wasted if you hampered your slave's effectiveness to serve through physical torture or harm.
Also, people like having nice things, and strong and healthy slaves certainly are nice things not only for utility purposes, but also for status as it would demonstrate your sense of good care and responsibility, they are part of your estate and you should take good care of their management.
Not a justification for slavery, still, but cracking the whip and starving your slaves in droves in just amateur hour levels of slave-keeping, for shame!

In modern day society, no, I would not own slaves because life offers far better alternatives these days, but ask me in early medieval times, where having a warm meal and a roof above your head, protection from wild animals, exposure and care is hard to come by, slavery would be the preferable option for them, then I would since we both get something out of it.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

If we created a race of sentient, thinking, feeling machines only to make them our servants and slaves, I for one would be going all John Brown. So, no. I would not take a sentient robot slave.

 

[Leg End]

Of course I do. I'm Amarrian after all!

You're officially the best person here and you're a slave driver that will be destroyed by the Winmatar.

 

[Jute88]

No I think slavery is the vilest of humans sins for the abuse it's silently perpetuates. Victims of slavery, especially those indoctrinated cannot give genuine consent to too, even if on the appearance they do.

Yet. For some reason I'll argue until I'm blue in the face that Imperial Slaves in Elite Dangerous, aren't really slaves.

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?

As for the poll, I answered yes, but now I'm stuck with the dilemma on what to do with them.