House elves (WAS: realistic solutions)

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 180803

> Mike:
> But how can we evaluate that relationship without taking the 
> character's values into consideration? Yes, they own elves in a 
> master-slave relationship. Should that be the extent of it, should 
we 
> say slavery is bad, full stop? Or should we allow that there is 
more 
> in play here, that this isn't the same as in our world with humans 
> put in bondage against their wills and their human nature?
> 
> If we're talking about the morality of the situation, I think it's 
> incumbent upon the wizards to decide what's appropriate for all the 
> players. They must look at the ramifications of their choices on 
the 
> elves as well as themselves. 

Magpie:
I don't think it's ever the extent of it--I mean, even with human 
slavery there's plenty more to say. We don't have to ignore the harsh 
reality of what happens if an elf is given clothes.

But as a_svirn said better than I am, Wizards make decisions on 
what's good for Wizards and house elf slavery is good for them. If it 
weren't it woudln't be an institution any more than the Gobln notion 
of property is. They have no trouble at all imposing their own views 
of right and wrong on other cultures or other people when the views 
of those other cultures run counter to their own. They don't care 
what happens to werewolves who can't support themselves thanks to 
anti-werewolf legislation, for instance.

Wizards reap the benefits of their relationship to House Elves. It's 
not like they're extending charity to them by owning them. And it's 
not just the service they provide that's a benefit, it's their 
slavery. Kreacher is kept a slave not because his views are respected 
but because it's safer for the Order. Harry gives Kreacher orders in 
HBP (orders Kreacher doesn't want to follow) not because he feels 
sorry for Kreacher but because he wants the order fulfilled. 

So yeah, the book poses the question of whether it's bad to own 
another person and have them serve you even if it makes them happy. A 
slave who's going to fall down weeping if he's freed is a different 
person than the slave who's going to run away the first chance he 
gets. But looking at it this way, for instance, just seems a little 
self-serving for Wizards:

Mike:
I think in the context, wizards have 
> two choices that must be weighed for their morality; they can 
refuse 
> to be slave owners (your position), or they can accept that elves 
> need to serve wizard masters (my position). 

Magpie:
Because it's imo disingenuously pretending the Wizards aren't reaping 
all the benefits. It makes them passive--they're just accepting that 
elves need to serve Wizards rather than enjoying the benefits of 
having slaves and imposing their will on House Elves whether that 
particular slave wants to serve a particular Wizard or not. We don't 
have much evidence that Wizards are much struggling with the latter 
choice. Elves' need to serve Wizards comes up most often as a reason 
not to think about dismantling the slave trade that nobody's really 
bothered by anyway. Sure Harry doesn't want to free Kreacher as a 
demonstration of being a 'good guy' knowing that Kreacher would take 
it as a catastrophe. But Harry and Kreacher's relationship still has 
never been governed by anything but Harry's--and not Kreacher's--
desires. 

Wizards always first question what's best for Wizards. Elves' 
feelings about ownership might imo give the illusion that Wizards are 
acting on Elves' behalf, but the Elves' desires support their own 
wishes (when they don't Wizards overrule them) in ways the wishes of 
Werewolves, Goblins and Giants don't. 

-m