House elves (WAS: realistic solutions)

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 180825

> a_svirn:
> What I quite honestly 
> > don't get is why it does not make any difference whatsoever to 
> their 
> > being owned? All those real life slaves who don't like being 
> slaves 
> > don't like being owned either. 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> I am afraid I do not understand the meaning of the first sentence 
> here. What does not make any difference to their being owned? The 
> fact that they like it? Could you clarify please?

a_svirn:
Well. I seem to be more than usual obscure. Let's try it this way. 

Axiom1. Being owned means being slaves.
Syllogism 1. 
Premise A. The main characteristic of slavery is that slaves do not 
like being what they are.
Premise B. Elves like being what they are.
Ergo: Elves aren't slaves. 

Syllogism 2
Premise A. The main characteristic of slavery is that those who are 
owned do not like being what they are.
Premise B. Elves like being what they are.
Ergo: Elves aren't owned.

Axiom 2. Elves are being owned in canon.

Conclusion: Something is wrong – either axioms, or premises. Which? 

> > a_svirn:
> > The same argument can be made about elves. Do they know better? 
> Not 
> > likely, since they obviously have been owned by wizards for 
> > centuries. And vice versa – the argument about human slaves' 
> > different nature has been at play for centuries. 
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> I do not see how it can be. The only reason I am able to make this 
> argument about human slaves is because I know better in 
> retrospective. After reading the psychological explanations, etc. I 
> see no reason that house elves have the same thoughts processes as 
> humans and I see how freed elves feel and I believe therefore they 
> DO know better. IMO of course. They tried the taste of freedom and 
> rejected it.

a_svirn:
Isn't it a bit of a sweeping conclusion? We saw the total of two 
elves who tried the taste of freedom and exactly half of them liked 
it just fine. And have you never read how fearful of freedom can be 
convicts who served long terms and face the unknown free (and often 
insecure) life? 

> Alla:
> But in any event, this is not exactly the question I was asking for.
> 
> Doesn't canon suggest loud and clear that Sirius' behavior towards 
> Kreacher and Harry's behavior towards him was indeed wrong?

a_svirn:
No, it doesn't, not in the way I mean. The canon suggests that they 
were not kind enough. I say that they were unfair. 

> Alla:
> So, I do not disagree - fairness should be exercised, but my 
> question was, I thought you were suggesting they should be freed.

a_svirn:
But, Alla, if Kreacher is free to choose his master he is free 
period. He isn't owned anymore. 

  
> > > Alla:
> > > 
> > > I would love to know the actual answer to Mike's question, 
> because 
> > > to me the answer to you is very simple. <SNIP> 
> > > But should we FREE him? Should we FREE Kreacher? 
> > 
> > a_svirn:
> > My answer? Kreacher should serve where he wants to serve. He 
wants 
> to 
> > serve the true heirs of the Noble House of Black? Well, let him. 
> It 
> > is not FAIR to force him to serve someone who is repugnant to 
him. 
> >
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Yes of course and I thought it was clear that Kreacher at the end 
> wants very much to serve under Harry, no?

a_svirn:
So what? Harry did not change his views on slavery, pardon, 
ownership, did he? He owns Kreacher because he can, not because 
Kreacher's change of heart. 

a_svirn