House Elves and justice, etc

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 129738

deborahhbbrd wrote:
> I'd like to make a couple of points about the ethics, slavery etc
> discussions: and I'm a frustrated would-be snipper because my 
computer
> is playing silly games – presumably at the instigation of a House 
Elf
> who doesn't want the world to know the truth 

> 
> But A Svirn said that slaves have no ethics: since they are 
deprived
> of justice in their entire lives, they must therefore also be 
devoid
> of (a sense of) justice. But we are not living in slave-owning
> societies, so how would we know? Enter the ancient Greeks and 
Romans –
> fanfare – and their dramatic expressions of current thinking.
> 
> Slave-owning societies, they were. (Bows to Yoda.) And their 
comedies
> were remarkably similar to modern TV sitcoms in many ways, not 
least
> their use of stock characters: the Grumpy Old Man, the Bigmouthed
> Boaster, the Dishy Babe, the Manipulative but Lovable Slave 
 who 
is
> the point, of course! This person is, typically, playing his 
owner's
> game in the hopes of furthering his own agenda, which is liberty. 
The
> slave, denied happiness and the choice of a wife, often helps the
> Grumpy Old Man's Misunderstood Son to get together with the Dishy 
Babe
> (who is sometimes a slave herself, but is always discovered to have
> been free-born after all, so they can marry). He responds
> imaginatively to a fellow human in distress, and tries to improve 
the
> Young Master's unhappy lot. (He is not the kind of slave who gets
> abused, decapitated etc – his owners are fair and good, as owners 
go;
> but he pines for freedom and wants the Young Master to enjoy it.)
> 
> And when the happy ending comes about, through the slave's creative
> ingenuity, he is asked what he would like as a reward. And is given
> it. His freedom, of course.
> 
> Here we have a powerful story line, which a slave state found
> convincing. Slaves can be creative; slaves can be loyal and
> affectionate; slaves can play both ends against the middle for the
> sake of truth and justice; and slaves can see the big picture when
> their owners often stare themselves blind against rather nugatory
> considerations. And there is no compulsion, certainly no thought
> control, nothing but mutual respect and affection. It is bizarre, 
but
> it is a brilliantly useful plot device.


I really don't see what your examples have to do with the "matter of 
honour" as it were. Slaves have the same feelings as free people 
have, they may or may not possess high intelligence, they can be 
creative (both Dobby and Kreacher certainly are) etc. But Ethics? 
Honour? To say that slaves can be as moral and honourable as free 
people is simply to ignore (and in effect, embellish) the very 
nature of slavery. Honour implies dignity and integrity; slaves are 
stripped of both. They do not belong to themselves; they are demoted 
from `beings' to `things'. In other words, they have no other worth 
but that in relation to their masters. If their services are 
important or even indispensable their life purpose is justified and 
they can feel their own value, if, on the other hand, their labours 
are expendable – they are lowly and worthless. That's why for Winky 
freedom came as such a blow: she had been a privileged servant: she 
had been trusted with important secrets and her services had been 
(and indeed later proved to be) indispensable. On her own she simply 
has no worth and purpose – hence the depression and alcoholism. 

a_svirn