House Elves and justice, etc
kgpopp
kgpopp at yahoo.com
Tue May 31 00:28:34 UTC 2005
No: HPFGUIDX 129750
> 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'.
Kristen here
Interesting discussion hope you don't mind me jumping in with my 2
cents.
First, while I agree that to the owner of slaves; the salves are
demoted from beings to things. However in the real world I cannot
make the stretch to believe that all slaves think of themselves as a
thing. Full disclosure :-) My favorite quote is from Eleanor
Roosevelt "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent."
And as you'll see by the rest of my post I put a lot of stock in that
belief.
So it is no surprise that I would also disagree that slaves cannot
have dignity and integrity. IMO Dignity is a state of worth/esteem
and respect that you give yourself; and integrity is acting in
accordance with your values. Therefore, if you respect yourself and
act in accordance with your values you can have dignity and integrity
even if other don't give it to you.
Last I maybe reading into your argument something you did not intend
but it seems that you are making an assumption that slaves lack free
will. And IMO all people (slaves and those who are "free") have
free will. Now I am sure I will get a lot of disagreement to that
statement so let me make a preemptive strike and say that I will also
argue that if you are a slave the choice to act in a manner that is
consistent with your values (e.g. with honor and integrity) is most
likely much much harder than a person who is free. But I still
believe they have a choice.
e.g. A master asks a slave Mike, to kill someone say Mary. Both the
Master and the slave Mike have a free will and can make a choice kill
Mary or let her live. Now the consequence of there action vary
greatly
the slave Mike risks death if he choose not to obey his
master, while the master may risk nothing by killing. But I still
argue that while slave Mike is given 2 very bad options he still has
a choice.
So how does this apply to house elves and the potterverse? Well the
magic contract part makes it a little trickier than human slaves in
the real because it seems that the magic contract does prevents them
from directly disobeying an order. So if some magical spell prevents
certain actions then house elves may not have total free will.
However, I think Dobby and Kreacher both help make my point because
they both chose to act in accordance with their beliefs and found
ways to around the technical limitation imposed by the magical
contract. (if such thing exists).
> 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
Kristen again
I actually kinda agree with your read on Winky. I don't think she
saw value in herself, but rather as you suggest she got her self
worth from the value Mr. Crouch placed on her. And while I fear that
many house elves would feel the same Dobby and even dreadful Kreacher
give me hope that the house elves can start to value themselves.
More information about the HPforGrownups
archive