Is slavery still evil if a slave race had been conditioned long ago to desire and enjoy complete servitude to others?

You can't argue that voluntary slavery is evil without arguing that modern heterosexual relationships are evil.
Modern heterosexual relationships are evil.

only in a place were slavery is common law.

When the beating of your heart echoes the swishing of the broom, there is a life ahead while you clean this room!

Not a boy, not hetero, and totally cute manga.

Shame on you.

Is it still slavery if you compenate them? I thought the whole point of slaves was workers you don't have to pay.

Unless you're talking about non monetary compensation, I guess.

>Unless you're talking about non monetary compensation, I guess.
Love and affection?

>>>Tumblr

Hillary voter spotted.

>are the Draka evil?
YES

>MODERN heterosexual relationships
>Implying there's anything wrong with the "patriarchy"
>Implying tumblr

You'll have to switch to a different set of meaningless buzzwords, friend. Here, let me help you

The Draka are my magical realm - aside from immortal redheaded psions.

Oh definitely. Super evil, I don't think anyone could serously argue it isn't.

But you've been born centuries after the fact. Is it evil for you to buy conditioned slaves? After all, not buying them free them, or un-condition them. Even if the slavery market collapsed overnight, they'd still want to be slaves.

Are they treated as slaves by their master? Are they treated as slaves by the legal system? Can they just walk out of the door without any punishment?

Do they want to be slaves or do they want to serve?

Personally I'd feel more comfortable if I gave them a small salary along with their food and board, and got to call them "servants." But that's just me.

Why would anyone hire a worker, who isn't a member of this race and actually demands a pay for his work?

Expoltation is explotation, even to willing slaves. If your defenition of evil incorporates explotation, then willing slavery is wrong.

Even a wage is exploitative, because you are generating profit off of someone else's work, because you hold a position of power over them in most cases.

Giving gifts and rewards (feasts, holidays, small amounts of spending money,) to slaves who performed well was very common. It served as a useful incentive to get them to work harder, plus it was seen as simply a nice thing to do.

In many societies, slaves (especially house slaves or slave-tutors) were treated more like prized servants and sometimes even family members than as actual slaves.

Hell, there were even stories about some Roman and Arab slave owners who made sure that their slaves ate better and better beds and such than they did. This was because there were huge social stigmas about someone who bought or owned a slave but lacked the ability to take care of them.

Again, slavery itself isn't necessarily evil, what matters is how you treat your slave. If you beat and torture and mistreat your slave, that's what would be evil.

That's wrong dummy.

Roman style Slavery was Ok, most of the time. Except the slave taking in the first place.
American South Slavery was pretty much horrible at every step of the way.

Yes. You can serve while being free person.

The phrase is 'room and board.' Board is the food.

Slavery IS evil, for it means forced obedience. Its like saying taxes are not evil, since you receive public services for them.

Slave has NO choice but to obey. THAT is what makes slavery wrong.

I admit my idiocy. Apologies.

So dogs?
Because we did that to dogs.

This, there were records of some slaves after the Emancipation Proclamation that didn't want to leave their masters. Some forms of slavery weren't actually that bad desu.

No, slavery is just neutral.

Chattel slavery without the opportunity for manumission could be evil, but that was far from the only kind of slavery out there.

For example, taking people as slaves with a chance to gain small payment for their services and even be able to purchase their freedom is undoubtedly better than simply killing them, which was typically the other option for defeated soldiers.

Yes.

Your stupid pseudo-philosophical bullshit killed our game, Steven. Fuck you.

that's because American slavery grew out of the tribal practices of the ivory coast which were essentially a mild form of ethnic cleansing.

Yes, it's wrong, because stop subjecting other players to your sick fetish, you braindead mongrel.

>It's not slavery if they're brainwashed into liking it
FTFY

>The subjugation of another thinking being isn't evil
Top kek

I see your point.

Lets say its about as wrong as killing someone?

>HEY GUYS WHAT IF YELLOW MENTALITY

doesnt make for good games, plebs can't discuss this kind of thing without exploding

your magical realm is apartheid?

>Its like saying taxes are not evil

>Is slavery evil if...

Yes. Slavery is always evil because it involves imposing your will on another sapient being. And it's doubly evil if they've been brainwashed into liking it and you take advantage of that fact. And it's triply evil if you have to invent new lines of thinking to justify your own moral bankruptcy.

Slavery is always evil all the time. No exceptions.

Well, yeah, it was generally better than subsistence farming. Not to mention that it was the only life many of those people had ever known. Home is still home, you know?

So would LG oppose low-pay live-long contract of employment with heavy penalty for whoever would break said contract ?

Yes.

Roman slavery was egalitarian : didn't matter if you were white, black, yellow or blue, who you worshipped and whom your parents were. Anyone could become a slave, even roman citizens.
American South slavery was fondamentally "white dudes dominate black dudes"

Personal freedom is a relatively new concept in human history. Mind you, prior to liberalism developing in Europe and then the Americas, it was assumed, and supported by the Catholic church, that monarchs had divine rule and authority over their subjects. Many rulers and thinkers of the time were alarmed by liberalism as a concept, thinking it would lead to moral debauchery. We only see ownership of an individual as evil because we have lived several hundred years without it.

And why is imposing your will on another sapient evil by default? Why is sapience put on this pedestal? Criminals are sapient and we impose our will on them. Children and the elderly are certainly sapient and we do much the same for what we see as their benefit, so it certainly isn't inviolable.

Probably much less wrong than killing someone, provided you treat them well and offer them the ability to buy themselves out of bondage at a future date.

IIRC, it depends on whether or not your mother was a slave was how Chattel slavery was conducted. Which is kind of weird, when you think about it, women had pretty shit rights back then. I guess the case of the darker looking son was far more common then we give it credit for.

>Be a paladin.
>My companions and I travel to a new land on our quest to spread good and defeat evil.
>Learn that this country runs entirely on slave labor.
>Absolutely diabolical.
>My companions and I make it our mission to liberate all the slaves.
>We storm the castle of a prominent slave owner and slay him.
>We go to the slave houses and free them of their chains, telling them that their master is dead and they are free.
>The slaves start crying.
>They don't want to leave.
>One of the slaves calms down suddenly and decides we must be their new masters.
>We now have 40+ slaves following us.
>Every time we order them to be free they start screaming and panicking.
>If we continue freeing other slaves we'll just wind up with an army of slaves following us.

What do we do, fellow adventurers?

Someone gives you two choices.

On the one hand, you're going to be a slave for 20 years, be given food, housing, and clothing and in exchange be expected to cook meals for a family, teach their children and help other slaves with keeping the house clean. After twenty years you'll not only will you have earned your freedom, you'll have a small amount of money to start a new life with.

Or, your other choice is to have someone cut off your head with a sword.

Which one do you think is worse?

>forgetting that American blacks owned slaves too
>forgetting that the first American slave owner was black

Bring the slaves to the nearest civilized area and give them the free choice to either settle down as freemen or sell themselves back into slavery. Explain to the local authorities that their master had died and encouraged your party to bring them somewhere safe.

When you're done adventuring in the country, encourage your allies in the surrounding countries to introduce new, more efficient means of farming and construction that would render slavery redundant.

Yes. Slavery has nothing to do with will, but with Choice. If somone chooses to serve willingly it's not slavery. (this might be arguable, is a unpaid servant automatically a slave?)
Slavery is evil, because it robs people of a choice. And that is the only thing evil about slavery.
Do not mix up the evil of slavery with the evil in mistreating servants or waging war for more slaves. A Master treating their slaves well doesn't make Slavery good or less evil, but it makes the Master a better person.

>still
Slavery wasn't evil to begin with. Don't confuse accidents (e.g. whips and chains) with essence.

t. BDSM

>it's okay that American slavery featured a whole lot of inhumane treatment because those damn DARKIES did it too!

>someone who signs an agreement, promising to be a slave, isn't actually a slave.

Whoever you're implying is enslaved, you need to fuck off either to /r9k/, which you were kind enough to link, or tumblr.

In the annals of history, American slavery was very much an exception. The slavery practiced by the Norse, the Romans, the Arabs, the Chinese, the Native Americans, various African tribes, and pretty much every other group in the history of the world did not resemble the slavery practiced by the American South.

>Personal freedom is a relatively new concept in human history
It's entirely possible that the concept of personal freedom has developed much earlier in a fantasy setting, and in fact in most published settings this is considered the default.
>Why is sapience put on this pedestal?
Because non-sapient beings, such as animals, cannot impose their free will in any serious capacity. It is still evil to abuse or mistreat them, however, because they are still sentient. They still have thoughts and feelings, just not to the same degree as a sapient being does.
>Criminals are sapient and we impose our will on them.
We do that because they have proven themselves to be a danger to other sapient or sentient beings, and thus cannot be trusted with their own free will. Again, it's evil to mistreat or abuse these individuals, as they themselves are sapient. It's also evil to brand people criminals because they violated a law that itself was unjust.
>Children and the elderly are certainly sapient and we do much the same for what we see as their benefit
Children are not developed enough to make their own decisions. They lack the experience, education, or other factors to make informed decisions. The elderly are likewise impaired in their decision making capability, either through mental issues or plain senility.

Fuck off and learn to spell, commie scum.

Damn son, you moved those goalposts halfway across the globe

>Someone who does something under duress totally wants it to happen guys!

Stop.

I'm not the one you were talking to.

Naw, bio-tech matriarchies with female pederasty (no term for it yet, I know that's not the actual terminology that should be used) with expansionist warfare and psychotic warriors are my fetish.

Apartheid was just a vehicle for it.

>no term for it yet
/ss/?

>slavery
>evil
>anything at all
>evil or good
When will they understand that the notions of good and evil depend on the setting?

But what if this sapient being is effectively incapable of looking after itself, and they enjoy a much higher quality of life under the heel of your people? A"good" person would almost be under obligation to subjugate them.

Slavery is forced labor. To force someone to do something against their will is wrong. If they choose to labor it is not wrong but engineering a situation where they feel they must labor is wrong. You have taken away the choice while creating the illusion it is still there. Creating a culture of subservience is a more cunning and diabolical evil than brute force.

Did someone just say...?

First, there's that "inventing new ways of thinking about something" that proves you're a degenerate scumbag.

Second, no, a good person is under no obligation to subjugate anyone, as that in itself can be easily considered evil. They have an obligation to try steer them away from that mindset. "Try" being a keyword there. You can't help people who don't want help, and forcing help upon them is evil itself.

Slavery is a horrible institution that degrades everyone involved, slave and master, and corrupts every society that allows it.

Even if you consider good and evil totally subjective then it's still a terrible idea.

>It's entirely possible that the concept of personal freedom has developed much earlier in a fantasy setting, and in fact in most published settings this is considered the default.

Mostly because they are taking the squeaky clean route of not trying to offend anyone. This is why I generally dislike fantasy settings and systems, outside of the standard Tolkien tropes, they're so boring and visibly artificial.

>Because non-sapient beings, such as animals, cannot impose their free will in any serious capacity.

Invasive species say otherwise and topography upended by native wildlife say otherwise. While you can argue that it isn't necessarily 'free will,' they are still left to their own, albeit instinctual, devices. And if sapience really does impact the environment more seriously, then simply letting the sapient act in accordance to their whims is inherently dangerous.

>We do that because they have proven themselves to be a danger to other sapient or sentient beings, and thus cannot be trusted with their own free will.
>Children are not developed enough to make their own decisions.
>The elderly are likewise impaired in their decision making capability, either through mental issues or plain senility.

Which makes it clear that free will isn't inviolable if we already have exceptions for utility. If we can deprive certain groups of their individual freedom for societal benefit, why not do the same for the law-abiding citizen, adult and sane? Some people are simply better at physical tasks, while others are better organizers or better at thinking in ways that benefit research. How is it wrong to slot these people into positions where they are much more efficient? The efficient worker is generally more prosperous, and being good at a tasks is intrinsically satisfying. So it's also beneficial to that individual.

Yes, I am well aware that I am playing the devil's advocate for creepy as fuck collectivism.

Can I become a little girl by signing an agreement?

Hell, if I were given the choice between that first option and living life as I am now, I'd choose the first.

>stable employment
>needs taken care of
>job is cooking, teaching, and cleaning, easy stuff
>get paid for life after employment

Fuck yeah.

>Slavery is forced labor. To force someone to do something against their will is wrong.
No numbers since I don't want to single out this post in particular, but I find it *ridiculous* how many people in this thread try to argue that slavery is wrong and end up making an argument that pretty much THE ENTIRE FUCKING CONCEPT OF LAW is wrong.

For instance, this argument has just implied that fines, community service, and prison are all wrong, because they involve forcing people do things against their will (pay money, do work, sit in prison). What acceptable punishments are we left with? Whipping and other direct forms of pain application, perhaps?

>Whipping and other direct forms of pain application
I sure hope that you aren't doing these against their will.

>"employer" decides to stop paying you because fuck it he can alter the contract as much as he wants
>if you object or attempt to leave his service, you are penalized further

What now fuccboi?

Free will is a child's delusion, a rejection of objective reality based on personal feelings. Embrace the machine, feel joy in the grinding cogs, for it is a good pain.

>creepy as fuck collectivism
What's so creepy about it? Apart from the fact that you are not used to it.

>I find it *ridiculous* how many people in this thread try to argue that slavery is wrong and end up making an argument that pretty much THE ENTIRE FUCKING CONCEPT OF LAW is wrong.
I guess some people are just Chaotic-aligned. It happens.

We commit lesser wrongs to prevent greater ones. A criminal has violated some social contract and wronged society so they must be wronged in respone so they may know they cannot act without consequence.

Sure I am, but that's *me* doing something against his will. I'm not forcing *him* to do anything in particular.

>blinkling maid boy
>boy
This is where all those hours of yurishit come into play.
dynasty-scans.com/chapters/oneeloli_manga_123

Yes, duh. If someone likes working in a service job, that person does not need to be compelled to keep working, and thus the institution of slavery is unneccessary.

>dynasty-scans.com/chapters/oneeloli_manga_123
Thanks mang, that's the good shit.

>The brainwashing of an entire species makes it Doubly Evil
Wouldn't that make religion evil?

This is /pol/bait.

Eek-barba durkle, someone's getting laid in college

>muh /pol/ boogymen.

And he's right you know, cults and organized religions got down what oppressive governments the world over have been paying to research for decades.

And the best part is, it's all consensual.

Prison is wrong, you know. Minor offenders should repay damage to victims/society as appropriate. Major offenders should be put down.

I dont think it's evil. Just another means of production. Provided you treat the folk in question humanely then it'sall good,man. Better than working for peanuts in a hovel and hoping you can survive the winter

euphoric.gif

Sure, prison might well be wrong. What I'm objecting to is the broad-spectrum implication that prison is wrong _and_ fines are wrong _and_ community service is wrong etc etc.

Religion isn't oppressive, humans have a natural religiosity about them and societies tend towards chaotic morality once they lose it. We wouldn't have been able to conquer most of the known world without the expansive energy of Christianity behind us.

It hurts me to see the way the Left has warped the history of American slavery into a cudgel with which it attempts to beat the South into submission.
It wasn't half as bad as you were told. Just like the "genocide" of the natives, it is hyped up into some inescapable ancestral sin which certain people want to use to control modern behaviour.