A willing slave? Seriously? How does that not break every definition of “slave” in use here, or not make it irrelevant to the question? Discomfort with what consenting adults do is a vastly different issue from opposition to actual slavery.
Would the slaves in examples 2-4 be justified to use force to free themsleves from bondage? And if so, would you be justified to help them?
My answer is yes and yes, which means I pretty much agree with DT - although I believe violence should be the last resort, not the first.
Oh, I’m all for slaves freeing themselves by force if necessary, and if that means a slave-owner gets killed, I’ll no more weep that Der Trish. My point is (since the debate seems to be moving away toward discussing abolitionism) that killing the slave-owner is not the best strategy for persons wishing to help chattel slaves.
I find it interesting how we all rationalize things to produce the ends we want. No one would dream of accepting slavery, even benevolent slavery, or even dictatorships. No way. But 50% of Americans have no trouble defending and supporting the killing and torture of foreigners who have done nothing to deserve it, by the thousands, because it serves some unclear convenience in American policy. I bet thousands of dead Iraqis would have chosen slavery over death. And the great majority of the rest of Americans, while they don’t support it directly they are more concerned about the economy or the price of gas and are quite apathetic about the crimes being committed in their name and with their support. We are all forced to be civil, if not friends, to people who defend something which I believe is worse than slavery. I have had to work very hard to convince myself that people who support evil are not necessarily evil themselves but mostly ignorant. Otherwise I could not deal with many people around me.
I agree - that’s why I specified that I would only kill if that were the best means of freeing the slaves. Inartfully put, I admit. But yah, I would only kill if other options (a) had been exhausted, or (b) would take an unreasonably long time. (I would not, for example, be willing to let someone remain a slave for years while litigation proceeded on his/her behalf.)
I can’t imagine being close friends with any of those people because I can’t imagine having much in common with them.
In many ways, the OP is like asking can you be friends with someone who is into dog fighting or cheats on his/her spouse. It’s technically possible to be friends with someone whose values differ significantly from yours, but I have to the question the depth of that kind of friendship.
I think “willing slave” is wholly appropriate terminology. I’m loath to turn to a dictionary for this stuff, but mine tells me that a slave is “a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another” – which fits the TPE case to a tee. Both colloquially and lexically it makes perfect sense to call the submissive person in a TPE relationship a “slave”.
Given that the purpose of this thread is to root out what and what not we’re comfortable with regarding those who would keep slaves, I don’t see what your opposition is.
My opposition is that the TPE “slavery” is roleplaying, not real slavery. The “slave” is free to go at any time. Real slaves are not so comparing the two is facile.
I don’t see what’s so obscure about his point. A willing slave is to a unwilling slave as a suicide is to a homocide. Consent has all to do with it.
No, because it’s a contract. The “slave” is not the property of the “master.” The “slave” is getting something they want and when they stop getting what they want, they can leave.
I don’t know anyone who owns one or more slaves and I doubt very seriously that I ever will. But if I form a friendship with someone and later learn that he does in fact own slaves, I wouldn’t end the friendship just for that reason, provided that slavery is legal in whatever alternate universe we were inhabiting.
Cases 1 & 2 are fine; they’re not responsible for enslaving someone against their will. I would prefer that 2 take direct action now, but I understand if that’s a great risk in his home country.
For cases 3 & 4, I think I would first try to get that person to see the light. If he’s my friend, after all, I must think that there’s something worthwhile to this person, some aspect of humanity and decency. Failing that, I would no longer consider him my friend, and would try to find a way, ANY way, to free his slaves. This would most likely be an appeal to the police, and if slavery’s legal, to underground organizations. Failing that, depending on how brave I felt, I’d try and free the slaves myself, and yes, I would kill the slave-owner if it was necessary and within my power.
Also note that anybody who knowingly prevents you from freeing the slaves (as opposed to thinking you’re stealing the slave-owner’s TV or something) is fair game for anything up to and including killing, as well. Of course, if there are less drastic and equally effective methods available, you are obligated to try those first.
Any sort of BSDM situation wouldn’t bother me as long as it was consensual. That’s a lifestyle choice and the person can easily get out of it if it no longer suits them assuming they aren’t being abused or have psychological issues.
As far as slave owners from other countries - I guess it would depend on their general attitude and nuances of their beliefs, as well as what our friendship was like before I knew about the situation. I understand that other cultures are different than mine, and they get some leeway in that regard. But I suspect that if I found it objectionable, I would probably already have found reasons to dislike the person. I can’t imagine someone who has a particularly immoral attitude towards slavery not being a jerk in other ways more directly affecting our friendship. Plus, I suspect that slave owners would tend to not be too happy about my sexual orientation.
I AM A SLAVE OWNER.
It’s for my camera flash; Geese Louise. 