I reject your definition of slavery; I think it's a rather unusual definition. A slave is generally a person owned as property. Theoretically, a person could be a slave without ever doing a day of work in their life, if their master never gave them anything to do.

However, I also reject that the issue is as you present it, even if I were to accept your definition.

If we accept your definition of slavery, then House Elves are trivially not slaves (the definition has been constructed to make this so).

However, this is just an act of fitting House Elves into a stipulated category; a label. Fine, House Elves aren't slaves. But this still does not touch on the substantive issue, which is: is the position of House Elves in society, whatever that position is called, morally justifiable? The material facts remain the same regardless of what you call it, and those facts are, I propose:

House Elves are magically bound to obey the orders of others.

House Elves lack the ability to freely consent to this due to the duress-like circumstances.

House Elves are capable, via education*, of gaining the ability to freely consent or refuse.

When they gain that ability, at least some choose to refuse to be bound to obey orders.

Almost all House Elves are denied the education which allows them that free choice.

*Broadly construed as the learning effect of life experiences.

 

In the actual world of Harry Potter (i.e. not the real world) then yes it is morally justifiable.

Please bare in mind that this is not me saying that it is - because it clearly isn't - but you are trying too hard to compare fiction to reality. In this fictional universe it is an accepted fact that house elves are bound to Masters. Heck, Albus Dumbledore has a whole school of them, the largest dwelling in the UK in fact.

 

Something being commonly accepted does not necessarily make it morally justifiable. It was not long ago at all that homophobia was widely accepted; in many parts of the world it still is.

Even the most progressive people are the product of their times and progressive relative to what they know. This was noted earlier on, about how there are multiple levels of "liberal" and what is accepted by today's liberals becomes questioned by tomorrow's.

Albus Dumbledore is no exception to this.

 

Again, I am not saying that it is morally justifiable myself, just that in the world of Harry Potter the belief is society wide.

Maa. Their fashion sense is behind the times, and obviously their views on sentient beings as property is as well. They'll catch up eventually.

 

We see more characteristics of slavery in the house-elves than just 'forced to work.' Let's play I Spy the Slave with these helpful quotes from hera.org:

As far as I can tell, it is undeniable that House-elves are slaves.

1. House-elves are controlled by their masters in an even more fierce way than humans because magic ensures their cooperation, or makes disobedience impossible—they can only disobey if their master didn't directly order them to do or not do something (or perhaps house-elf magic is far more psychological than wizards in that their mental state, what they're trained to do, what they know to be right and wrong determines how they can use their magic, or how it turns against them). They seem to be in physical pain when they do not obey or when they hear or think thoughts that contrast what the master would approve of them hearing or thinking. Control over them is absolute. There is no freedom of movement. Dobby going to Harry and Kreacher going to Bellatrix can't not be argued as freedom of movement—they were not told they could not go there. Also, when the master calls, they must answer. In the case of Kreacher not answering Sirius, he saw Bellatrix as a master. She's a Black, one who didn't commit any blasphemy against the Black family.
2. They are physically punished, whether trained to do it by themselves, or by their master as a penalty.
3. They cannot determine their life-course. It is up to their master. They are property.
4. The cannot claim any compensation for their work. There is no gain. They are exploited for free labor.
5. Personal belongings? They have none. If their state of dress can be argued as 'personal belongings,' they have no control over that. Dobby clearly didn't want to be wearing a pillowcase while he was still owned by Malfoy.
6. 'Informed consent' implies some sort of education. House-elves are not educated, and you can tell by the way they speak. If they are educated, it is not by wizards, it is by other house-elves who are just as brainwashed, just as uneducated, just as unworldly. There is no 'full understanding' of the relationship between house-elf and master on part of the house-elves exactly because they're not educated. Just because they're in a situation, doesn't mean they understand everything it entails.

Wrong. There is a big difference.

If I'm at my dream job and I decide, "Fuck the world, I'm not doing it," and my boss fires me, takes away my pay, that's my decision. I'm no longer bound to do anything.

If I love work but suddenly decide I need a day off and I'm a slave, guess what will happen?

The difference is having the ability to do something of your free will without fear of physical punishment if you choose to do so, and having the ability to leave that situation, whatever it may be.

 

What? Having a personal purpose in life does not imply that you have to or will always do something. You can believe something is your purpose in life and still get a sick day. I don't care if house-elves can't get ill, some like Dobby get horribly abused. If their hands are ironed and they cannot move them, they cannot do physical work, and, if we take it that they use hand gestures to do magic, they can't work that way either. If house-elves can't go against their supposed purpose for a single day, there is a problem.

And even in a thought experiment where all the happy workers always decide to do the work, it doesn't take away the characteristics of slavery they display, and it does not take away the fact that they don't have the ability to do or not do something if they did so choose so, even if they never do. If you change the thought experiment to a normal worker that always decides to work, they are still not property, their life course is still determined by themselves, they have belongings, they have freedom of movement, etc.

 

Even if the "Social Imperius" theory is assumed to be true, there are still practical matters to consider. How on earth do you even start the education of house elves? There is a grand total of one house elf in canon who desires freedom, and even he prefers work to freedom (and is universally reviled by other House Elves), so he is hardly the perfect role model here.

You can't just go on freeing house elves like Hermione tried to do (even if her goals were arguably noble, her methods were unquestionably stupid. I think we can all agree on that), since that would just drive the elves to suicidal depression. The elves get completely horrified at the very idea of 'freedom'. I don't think there are any real life situations that come close to emulating this. This is a complete reinvention of their very species. Where on earth would you even start to sort this mess out?

Also, this is where house elves differ from 10 year olds who desire sex. We know there are 10 year olds perfectly happy without it and there are real 10 year old children whose lives can be emulated by the children in question. There are zero house elves who don't love work more than freedom. For all we know it could be a quirk of their species and a fundamental part of their existence. Which is another difference. House Elves aren't Human. Stop judging them as such.

If we knew for a fact that House Elves would be happier with freedom, I'd agree to their education. As it is, freedom is to House Elves what Dementors are to Harry. It might just be kinder (and definitely less risky) to let the status quo continue.

 

I don't know why I even bother. Once again you have blatantly ignored what I was saying. The only thing you're focusing on is their willingness to work.
Granted.
But House elves don't have rights. They can't even choose who to work for and no matter how much they hate their masters it has been ingrained in them to serve them.
Also there are no laws which protect their interests. They can be treated anyway by their masters and they can't even protest. You really want to tell me that isn't slavery?
Gotta say though your apples and oranges analogy was rather clever, so you have rhetoric skill but a debate is as much about listening as it is about speaking, and your clever use of it doesn't hide your deficiency.

 

In b4 banned again.

I've always thought of house elves as akin to dogs. A dog is quite capable of communicating with you, doing a specific job and following orders. Generally speaking they follow their owner's commands and traditionally have existed in households to serve a purpose. The ability to speak in English and do magic in no way separates them from dogs in my mind. The difference between domestication and slavery is basically how you feel about the issue.

Sauce on any part of the house elf-human relationship being enforced by Magic? It has been a while since I read the books but I don't recall when Harry got Kreacher there being any kind of ceremony for him to accept the bond. The entire concept reeks of magically binding everything, when we know in fact that being magically bound requires specific circumstances (either a powerful object or a person to act as the binder).

 

It's magic.

 

According to wikipedia

Slavery is a legal or economic system under which people are treated as property.[1] Though laws and systems vary, as property, slaves may be bought and sold. Slaves can be held from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to demand compensation. Historically, slavery was institutionally recognized by most societies; in more recent times, slavery has been outlawed in all countries, but it continues through the practices of debt bondage, serfdom, domestic servants kept in captivity, certain adoptions in which children are forced to work as slaves, child soldiers, and forced marriage.[2] Slavery is officially illegal in all countries, but there are still an estimated 20 million to 36 million slaves worldwide.[3][4][5] Mauritania was the last jurisdiction to officially outlaw slavery (in 1981/2007), but about 10% to 20% of its population is estimated to live in slavery.[6][7]

That should sum it up pretty well.

 

I'd like to propose an amendment:

Any mention of a specific penis length.
Also, any mention of bra sizes in descriptions of people.

EDIT: Wtf happened in this thread?

 

Autism speaks.

 

I think you're all focusing on the wrong part of Taures list. Let's seen if we can get things back on track;

Poor Dean.