That particular society's citizens were rich before buying their Monacan citizenship. It's a tax haven, which is why you get so many rich 'citizens'.

I said supposedly because I was slightly parroting Taure's point. I'm not knowledgeable enough of canon to say one way or the other. I'm taking his point that it's a mostly closed economy as truth.

 

So the disagreement, as I see it, comes down to the nature of duress. I believe that duress can be invisible: you can be under duress without being aware of it. You, however, do not. As such you do not think that House Elves are under duress, because they do not consider themselves under duress.

A thought experiment may shed some light on this.

Imagine that I, an evil scientist, decide to raise a child in complete isolation from the outside world. I feed this child only bread. The child is not aware that any other food exists.

One day I say to my captive (who is now an adult): "What do you want to eat?"

He says "bread".


Now, it seems to me that the captive here is under duress with regards to their statement as to what they want to eat. By raising the him in a certain way, I have removed his ability to make a real decision. However, he does not feel under duress. He doesn't know enough about food to know what he's missing, because he thinks bread is the only food in the world.

In short, the duress is invisible.

This seems to indicate that it is possible for someone to think they are making a self-determination while in fact they are not. The captive thinks he doesn't mind that he's choosing bread -- it's just a part of accepted life -- but this is because there are factors beyond their control, factors which they do not see, making the decision for them.

Now, this thought experiment is clearly an extreme case designed to prove a point of principle. The House Elves are not quite as constrained as the child, as they at least know that freedom exists. But they've been told by authority figures their entire lives that freedom is terrible and slavery is great. They're told that if they're free, they won't be able to work, which is what they've come to enjoy doing. Every free House Elf they've seen has been shamed and shunned by other House Elves.

That seems to me to still be a significant amount of invisible duress, even if the House Elves don't see it as such.

CJC: crucially, I called the wizarding economy small and closed. Monaco is not a closed economy.

Paranoid Android: recognition that the current situation is wrong and ability to find a practical solution are two separate issues. Absence of a practical solution does not make a situation right. But you're correct, any attempt to reverse House Elf brainwashing would take generations. You can't just go in and kidnap children, or obliviate them.

Allowing them to attend Hogwarts could be a powerful start. They'd be away from the influence and values of their conservative House Elf parents who would be attempting to instil in them the slave morality. They would be learning wizard magic and thus empowered. They would be interacting with wizards as peers and so gain a taste for equality.

 

Dobby, the only known house elf to break from this duress, still chose a life of servitude with pitiful pay and pretty much no holiday.

In which case they would be wizard elves, not house elves. A new culture of elves then, perhaps.

 

Dobby chose a life of servitude, but not slavery.

 

In all my arguments I have assumed nothing. I'm working with facts here. One of the facts is that even when house elves loathe their masters they can't go against them, not overtly anyway hence the probable lack of rebellions.
Fact remains that their condition can be better. They don't need to be slaves in order to be servants.
Fact remains that there are no laws in place to protect them from abuse at their master's hand.

Hell even animals have rights, why can't house elves?

 

That was not because she was freed, but because she was no longer allowed to serve Crouch. Freedom was not the cause, but the effect of Crouch's decision.

 

Why would the wizarding Economy of Britain be closed though? We know that there is international politics and cooperation between the ministries, so why not the economies? And why not the rich wizard who invests in muggles that I suggested as well.

To me, it seems a bigger assumption that the wizarding economy of countries is closed considering that there are international events that take place with some regularity (Triwizard Tournament, Quidditch world cup) and that there are legislative branches that specifically deal with foreign countries.

 

I am not saying they aren't entitled to rights, merely that their definition of rights would not necessarily coincide with that which humans classify as rights.

It was not the cause, but it was the result - that she became a free elf.

 

At the very least it needs to be acknowledged that they need rights, which you have done. As for what rights that's again hypothetical, but protection from abuse and cruelty by their masters should take precedence at the very least

 

Sesc: so what you're saying is that there is indeed apparent duress, but we don't know if that apparent duress is actually influencing this decision? I.e. we don't know the counter-factual: how the captive would have decided, if the apparent duress were absent. And since it is possible that the counter-factual situation could end up in the same decision (i.e. the decision was natural despite the apparent duress), there's no need to remove the apparent duress.

I think this only works if you were certain that the decision would be the same in a situation where the apparent duress were removed. Possibility, to me, is not enough.

The problem is that it's the very situation that the child is in which is prevents you from knowing if it's natural or not. By refusing to remove the child from the situation you're deliberately perpetuating your ignorance and the possibility that the duress is effective remains.

(And you do know that there is an evil scientist: you are the evil scientist. In this analogy, all wizards are collectively the evil scientist, because wizarding society is creating the constraints on the decision.)

Asking back "do you want cake?" means nothing if the prisoner has no idea what "cake" means. They've heard of it, but it's strange and scary and they have no personal experience of it. The captor who has engineered that belief that cake is scary, and has prevented any personal experience of cake, has a responsibility to offer cake in a genuine way. Merely saying "do you want cake?" is not enough, the captor has to undo the damage he has already done and give the prisoner a free decision.

Of course, practically speaking, this particular prisoner may be beyond help, as they're so used to bread that the damage you did cannot be undone. But when another prisoner appears in your cell a year later, you can do things differently with that one.

 

I would say that Dumbledore abuses Dobby's rights, as Dobby does not know the value of money and holiday he cannot be expected to know that what he is getting is next to nothing.

It is the same as Taure's thought experiment with the child and the bread - Dobby no more knows materialistic values than the boy does other foods.

 

He knows very well the meaning of holidays. 'A day were you don't have to work' is something he knows about.

And IIRC he buys clothes with the money he gets from DD, so he does know a little about the value of money. Not to mention the fact that he found DD's initial offer too high, meaning he does have an idea about its worth.

 

Yet it is still slave labour. 1 galleon a week and 1 day off a month are vastly below the norm for humans.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but the crux of you're argument would be as follows "Freedom is a universal right. Elves are sapient and thus deserve human rights. If an elf does not desire freedom there is something wrong with it's thought process. This something is societal pressures or the 'social imperious'. As this is keeping the elves from freedom the 'social imperious' is wrong and should be done away with."

So I guess the argument comes down to whether you believe that freedom from slavery is a right the elves want or need. It seems to me that you're respecting the elves freedom to make a choice only when it coincides with our human idea of good. When an elf says that "I am happy being a slave" under this system he is not free to make that decision because it is not motivated by the elf but by society. How do we know this? Why it's because freedom is something a sapient species wants, house elves are a sapient species so therefore there must be an outside influence interfering with the elf.

As we are presupposing that freedom from slavery is something all sentient creatures intrinsically desire in this system. We will attribute any answer from the house elves that is not acceptable to be caused by society. However it's not impossible that freedom from slavery is not something that house elves desire intrinsically. Therefore to make them reach the conclusion that we desire we will spend generations brain washing the elves to our point of view.

The thing is with house elves we are not told their origins so it is impossible to say with any certainty what it is the house elves actually want. As for if they need it. If the elves are just as happy before emancipation and after then what difference does it make.

 

I'm not going to argue with you if Dumbledore's treatment of Dobby amounts to abuse or not. I will state the facts however.
Dumbledore had offered Dobby a lot more money in addition to weekends off. It was Dobby who negotiated that amount and time off for himself.
If you say consenting to Dobby's request amounts to abuse of Dobby's rights than that's your way of seeing things, I won't question it. I'll settle for the ceasing of physical and verbal abuse for starters.

 

So? It's Dobby's choice to work for that wage, not DD's.

 

In the real world, if you have a job and are paid below the minimum wage that is illegal whether you are happy with the pay or not.

A choice that Dobby cannot make without knowing all that the choice entails. If you can't see that then I can't help you.

 

This is almost right, but the bolded section is slightly off. I do think that an elf can freely choose slavery (just as a human can). The problem is that I don't think they can freely choose slavery from the position they're currently in (social imperius). This then deals with your next objection:

It's not that we will never accept a House Elf's statement that they want to be a slave. Rather, it's that we can't accept it so long as we can see the ways in which our past treatment of the Elvish race has predetermined that decision.

(Just as past grooming remains an offence even after the groomed child becomes an adult and continues to consent)

If, after we are satisfied that an Elf is free from our own influence, the Elf professes a desire to be a slave, then we will accept that as its genuine desire (though we are under no obligation to take that Elf on as a slave).

 

And who says he doesn't? He knows what days off are, and he buys things with the money he gets, so I'd say he knows exactly what the choice entails.