What is slavery / how do we define slavery?

IN the "Is Slavery Worth love" thread, there are differing opinions on what slavery is, and that is making it hard for people to understand what each other say in that thread, because they both say the word "slave" or "slavery", but refer to different things.

So, let's define slavery, or make a bunch of definitions for slavery, so that people know what each other are talking about.

A slave is someone who doesn't want to do something, but is forced to.

If one approves of their master and accepts their work as a job though, then they are more like a servant/follower/minion/whatever. Possibly a poorly treated one, but still a servant/follower/minion/whatever.

edited 5th Mar '11 10:26:26 AM by TheMightyAnonym

Baby, don't hurt me.

Slavery is dead.

@Choco Er...no, it isn't.

A slave is someone who doesn't want to do something, but is forced to.

If one approves of their master and accepts their work as a job though, then they are more like a servant/follower/minion/whatever. Possibly a poorly treated one, but still a servant/follower/minion/whatever.

A slave is owned, they don't have a choice. If you can be bought and sold like an animal it doesn't matter if you love your job, you're a slave.

It's also a verb, sometimes.

edited 5th Mar '11 10:29:52 AM by HungryJoe

A slave is someone who must do what there master wants them to do if not the master will punish them until they do it.

Metaphorically, yes.

A slave is owned, they don't have a choice. If you can be bought and sold like an animal it doesn't matter if you love your job, you're a slave.

I liked my philosophical definition better... it made "slave" sound properly evil.

Another person owning you and having absolute controll isn't evil?

I would say it depends on the owner in that sense. Of course, most historical owners won't fit "not evil" in my head.

edited 5th Mar '11 10:40:52 AM by Edmania

It isn't if you willingly go along with it.

What if you're born into it? Like most American slaves were in the 1800s?

You had no say in the matter. In fact, nobody for generations had a say in the matter. Even the first slaves in your family didn't, they were kidnapped.

Being considered property. Unfree labor. Lack of choice. Also, the owner is permitted to force slave to obey. Note that actually agreeing with the owner and going along with their desires willingly does not make one any less of a slave as long as thepossibility and permission for owner to force them exists.

Oh, and the only definition of slavery this one would consider not evil is when someone voluntarily sells themselves into slavery. All the rest are evil by definition - and yes, all slave owners too.

I suppose Hetzel is evil too then.

No, that's buying their freedom. The ten minutes to process the paperwork aren't really an instance of ownership.

Another person owning you and having absolute control isn't evil?

I wouldn't call that inherently evil. It's just another form of power.

Power used good is good, power used evilly is evil.

Power isn't inherently evil. The captain of a ship isn't evil just because he has power, and he has a lot of it too. He dictates everything about his crew, including whether they live or die. A person who holds a loaded gun has nigh unto absolute control of others, and essentially owns them, in almost exactly the same way as a slave master. That gun doesn't make the man evil, though. What he does with that gun is what makes him good or evil. Perhaps he's a bank robber, pointing it at a hostage. Evil, right? But what if the man is a police officer, and is holding a criminal at gunpoint in order to save lives, perhaps even the life of the criminal, if they are addicted to a serious drug?

Power in all of its forms can be good or evil depending on the one who holds it. A slave master is one such powerful person.

Always Chaotic Evil isn't a label that holds very well in real life.

edited 5th Mar '11 11:03:23 AM by TheMightyAnonym

O RLY?! What if he kept him for like 5 minutes in slave-ness but didn't actually make him do anything to seem not-suspicious from the higher ups?

No idea who it is, I'm afraid. But quite possible. Note that it does not mean that he cannot be likeable or have redeeming qualities. But owning a slave is something that outweighs most of them, in my book.

No, that's buying their freedom. The ten minutes to process the paperwork aren't really an instance of ownership.

edited 5th Mar '11 11:07:29 AM by Beholderess

Power isn't inherently evil. The captain of a ship isn't evil just because he has power, and he has a lot of it too. He dictates everything about his crew, including whether they live or die. A person who holds a loaded gun has nigh unto absolute control of others, and essentially owns them, in almost exactly the same way as a slave master. That gun doesn't make the man evil, though. What he does with that gun is what makes him good or evil. Perhaps he's a bank robber, pointing it at a hostage. Evil, right? But what if the man is a police officer, and is holding a criminal at gunpoint in order to save lives, perhaps even the life of the criminal, if they are addicted to a serious drug?

This one honestly cannot imagine considering anyone who sees owning slaves as their right to be good. No matter how benevolent they are.

If this one had an owner, she would dream of the day when she would be able to slip poison in their drink. At least...at least until she could think such things, for this one is way too damn unforgivably cowardly and would be broken easily. But while my will is my own I would hate them, even if they were saintly.

Disobeying the one holding the gun might anger the gun holder, and might end with you being killed, but you do have the right to do it.

If we're considering something that loose a slave is still capable of doing that. A slave isn't mind-controlled. It still does things using it's own body. It might be killed for disobeying, but that doesn't mean that it cannot disobey. It's just incredibly dangerous for it to disobey most of the time.

I suppose if one believed that they had the "right" to own a person, then that would more or less eliminate all possibility of them being a loving master.

And then of course you bring up the issue of time. I don't see exactly how that plays into things though, at least where the definition is concerned. I struggle to find an adequate example, at this point, however, I can still detect something of a weakness here. Then again, it might change things in a way I'm not catching.

There's that, too.

edited 5th Mar '11 11:21:50 AM by TheMightyAnonym

True. But again, ability is not the same as right. Someone who escaped from a criminal with the gun is not going to be returned to the criminal. And criminal (if caught) will be prosecuted for threatening someone with the gun in the first place.

I suppose if one believed that they had the "right" to own a person, then that would more or less eliminate all possibility of them being a loving master.

Barring circumstances in which setting the slave free is absolutely impossible for some reason, of course. But then it wasn't the owner's choice to own someone in the first place

edited 5th Mar '11 11:25:00 AM by Beholderess

@TMA: Someone who holds a loaded gun to someone's head for their entire life is evil no matter what they're using their power for.

In fact I would say that using a gun to get someone to do something is always evil in itself; only sometimes it's permissible to use it to do a greater good.

A slave owner technically isn't that though. They're just someone who can do that. It doesn't mean they always do.