Comparing "house-elfment" to slavery (Part 1)

[naamagatus]

No: HPFGUIDX 39109

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., ladjables <ladjables at y...> wrote:
> 
> Amanda:
> > I don't get the feeling that the wizards *are*
> > actively controlling them, at least not usually. The
> > elves themselves, by their attitudes, bind
> > themselves. And it may be there are magical benefits
> > or contracts involving their status that we do not 
> > know about.
> 
> Restricting their powerful magic and their freedom of
> speech isn't controlling them?  Consider that the
> "domestication" of the house-elf renders actual
> physical control unnecessary.  They are binding
> themselves because they are practicing
> self-oppression. 

It seems to me that you are begging the central question here, which 
is - IS the house elves connection to humans innate (i.e., natural) 
or is it psychological (i.e., the result of "brainwashing"). You seem 
to already assume the latter. 

>   
> On defending house-elfment on the basis that
> house-elfs belong to a different species I argued: 
> > But, this was precisely the sort of argument used
> > to justify African slavery in the first place.
> 
> Amanda: 
> > This is irrelevant. Just because the "they're not
> > human" argument was used to justify slavery, in an 
> > instance where it turned out to be untrue, doesn't
> > mean that it's *not* true in the case of
> > house-elves. They are another species. There is no 
> > reason to assume their psychological needs are the 
> > same as a human's.
> 
> I think you missed my point.  That house-elfs are
> another species is not in dispute.  What is germane to
> the house-elf/slave discussion is how slaves were
> treated *when* they were believed to be another
> species.  When slaves were regarded as inferior(NOT
> human) the capacity for abuse was created and
> sanctioned.  Can we prove that the house-elfs, who may
> indeed have different psychological needs, are not
> manipulated to the wizards' advantage precisely
> because they are NOT human?

But that involves different moral issues, doesn't it? Enslavement of 
human beings is wrong. Period. The enslavement of Africans was wrong, 
for this reason alone. Lets even assume that Africans were considered 
a different, sub-human species, but nonetheless were treated, as 
slaves, with great kindness and consideration. It wouldn't change the 
wrongness of the state of slavery at all - since Africans ARE humans. 
House elves may indeed be manipulated by wizards in unfair and unkind 
ways. We have seen the atrocities Dobby had to suffer. But that is a 
different moral issue, what is the proper way to treat a species that 
IS non-human and that has an innate need to serve humans? In the real 
world we have never had to deal with anything remotely like this, 
since we have no experience with non-human, intelligent species. 
  
> "Not like us" encourages the notion that nonhumans may
> be treated unequally, as opposed to differently.  

If house elves are innately bound to serve humans, it's rather hard 
to imagine how they can be treated differently, yet equally.  

>I am
> not saying that house-elfs should be treated as
> humans, but an inherent danger exists once it is
> assumed that another group is not the same, i.e.
> human, and this is understood to mean not equal.  Does
> "non-humanness" open the door for abuse in the case of
> the house-elfs?  Fair treatment was sorely lacking
> when slaves were believed to be something other than
> human.

Well, there were cases of slavery (in ancient Greece, for instance), 
where, with no racist attitudes, slaves were still callously and 
cruelly exploited. 

My main point, however, is that the problem with human enslavement, 
like I said, is simply that it is enslavement. Once you posit human 
slavery, you cannot meaningfuly speak of fair treatment. Fair 
treatment becomes an issue, IMO, only if the basic structure of the 
relationship is deemed legitimate. For instance, child abuse arises 
(logically, I mean) out of the natural dependency of children on 
their parents (or adults in general). The same goes for dogs. We 
accept that dogs have an innate connection and need of that 
connection with their owners. Otherwise, we would be protesting 
against the very concept of dog ownership, wouldn't we? Since we 
accept it, however, we try to provide for rules that protect the dog 
from abuse by his owner. 

So, first we have to decide whether the bond of servitude between 
house elves and humans is morally right, and only then (if we decide 
it is) can we debate what constitutes fair treatment of elves.


Naama