You are stuck mate. For the last time they can't choose their masters and they can't disobey them. There is only so much 'misinterpretation' possible before the master catches on and makes sure his orders can't be 'misinterpreted' again, leading to even more subjugation.

 

The pair of you are repeating yourselves. This is because you've got stuck on this issue without making it clear how it relates to the argument as a whole and therefore what factors are relevant and which are not.

The rut we're stuck in is basically a semantic difference. The facts are agreed upon:

1. Elves have the ability to interpret orders.

2. Elves have the ability to undertake ventures of their own making, though if it contradicts what they know to be their master's desire they have to punish themselves for it.

3. Elves cannot directly go against their masters interests (Dobby could not explicitly say what Lucius' plan was).

4. Elves cannot disobey direct orders.

What you're disagreeing on is whether or not to call this "free will". In many ways the name is irrelevant, since we all agree on the substantive facts.

Now, how do these substantive facts affect the debate?

This debate flows from the issue of paternalism. My position (that elves should be slowly educated so as to be able to make a choice over if they want to serve or not) is said to be paternalistic because in forcing Elves to go through this education it ignores their current statements that their desire is to be slaves.

I argue that Elves' current statements are not freely made, and therefore it is not a contradiction to ignore them in the pursuit of Elvish freedom. If someone is bound, with a gun to their head, and they say that they don't want to be untied, their statement is not a genuine expression of free will.

The issue then comes down to if Elves do or don't currently possess sufficient independent agency to make that choice in a free way. (Do they have a metaphorical gun to their heads?)

In my post above I argue that a free decision requires knowledge of the nature of what you would be consenting to and what the alternative is, understanding of the consequences of both, freedom from a disparity of power relations, and freedom from duress.

Does an elf's ability to interpret their orders disprove this? I don't think so. It shows what we already know, that an elf is capable of having desires and beliefs. It does not show that those desires and beliefs have been independently and freely formed.

Dobby is an example of an Elf who understands the nature of slavery as compared with freedom, has liberated himself from the influence of his master's values and is unafraid of duress. His ability to choose freedom does not show that all Elves have an ability to freely choose, because the same is not true of all Elves.

TL;DR: don't get lost in the details and forget the framework.

 

I'm afraid we did get a bit carried away there Taure.
Coming back on track, I have already said whatever you have in one form or another though I probably wasn't as articulate.

 

How did you get so smart, Taure? Like which magic book did you read?

 

Taure is like Dumbledore and the rest of us are just bumbling students.

 

And yet for all his wisdom he couldn't convince
people that slavery is wrong. I should share some of the blame I suppose but then again I'm no Taure.

 

Everyone should know that slavery is wrong, we're just disagreeing with the comparison of house elves = slaves.

 

The fact that we have failed to convince you that house elves are slaves is the reason for our failure.

 

Well one minute their compared to slaves and the next their compared to children.

 

Well for a large part of history the categories weren't mutally exclusive. Even in some places today they aren't.

 

Just go through my posts again because I really don't want to repeat myself. But since I can't help myself I will say again.
Slaves have no rights.... agreed?
House elves have no rights..... agreed?
Slaves don't receive protection under the law..... agreed?
House elves don't receive protection under the law... agreed?
If your answer to these queries is in affirmative I fail to see how you can still say house elves aren't slaves and if it is not then the entire argument is rendered moot.

 

Taure, did you ever imagine that a simple pet peeves/story breaker thread would turn into this?

 

He does it on purpose.

 

I can see my last post has been ignored more or less

 

Well I'm pro-House Elf Slavery. Or House Elf Extermination. If one couldn't be maintained, the second is fine.

 

{ Either you saw it or you missed it }

/the troll has begun

 

Strange thought: A house-elf can only be freed when their master presents them with clothes. What about laundry?

Does this mean that wizards have to leave their dirty laundry in a place house elves can reach and then order them to do laundry but specifically state that they are not being freed? I mean they can't just give the house elf the dirty laundry in case they accidentally free them from service.

 

Just to make my position clear, I do believe that house elves are slaves but I don't agree that they are like children who can't currently decide for themselves because they're under a "social imperius". Informing them that they will be freed if they ask and also of what freedom would entail would likewise be a moral requirement for me if I had a house elf, so I kind of agree with Taure there. I'd also support laws that guaranteed that this education and agreement was universal for house elves as well as protection against physical/verbal abuse. I just disagree that house elves basically have the same mentality/thought process etc. that human beings have and they've simply all been brain-washed to like menial work and being slaves.

 

Well, regarding the larger picture, I disagree that House Elfs are under social imperius that all of their will, but I have to agree they are on a deeply unequal position regarding their role on society, and how they both view themselves. A paternalistic vision should be enforced, but not using the Ius Naturalis as basis, since those are human, mostly western, values.

About my biggest peeve on the fandom, arranged marriages. There were tons of reasons for arranged marriage, but basically were this: economic/social standing improvement, military alliances, cementing the dominance of one side or keeping the power inside.

Almost all of these have no real aplication on the modern wizarding world, and some not for quite a while. The closer counterparts, that could be applied, ie keeping the social standing, would need in almost all of the equivalent cultures the agreement of both sides, and while the family would arrange it, the bride and groom would certainly have the final word. Arranged between children has, in my opinion, place here. That barely happened after the middle-ages, and only to cement vital alliances.

 

What I write may be obsolete by the time I'm done, so I'm sorry if I'm redundant.

I find it highly disturbing that so many people think, "House-elves like being slaves, so why shouldn't they be?" Or that they aren't even slaves.

First, they are definitely slaves. Just because they are accommodated by their masters doesn't mean that they aren't slaves. That doesn't make any sense. They provide free labor, and they are physically punished when they don't meet the standards of the master. They aren't even allowed to wear clothes—they're dehumanized. And they are definitely sentient, like humans. They're not like domesticated animals that can't speak for themselves. Saying they are is also dehumanization.

And why shouldn't they be free if they like being slaves? Um, because it's completely irrational. They're brainwashed. It's the same as saying that you think that kidnapped victims should be allowed to stay with their kidnappers because they helpfully developed Stockholm syndrome, or that abused children should stay with their abusers because, "God, I love Daddy so much, he's not mean, he's just unhappy, why can't I make him happy?"

I think this is a good explanation from Michael Stevens from Vsauce, on the video, Why Do We Kiss?:

I don't understand what's so hard to understand. House-elves love their masters because they're that third group of puppies. They act just like humans would born into slavery. They like pleasing their masters because they love them for all the wrong reasons—they fear the punishment, but desperately long for their praise. Their masters reject them, they cling even tighter.

Who knows how house-elves are raised, we didn't really learn anything about their lives in canon. I learned in high school that through America's history, domestic abuse among blacks may be greater than other races because slaves would punish their children so that their masters wouldn't. It's like that scene in Pirates of the Caribbean Dead Man's Chest, when Will is on Davy Jones boat and Will's father whips him instead of another. It's mercy. If the master got to them instead, they might be killed. House-elves learn to punish themselves, not because they're masochist, but for survival. This form of survival and teaching their children this method of survival (learning to behavior, do what you're told, whatever, through physical punishment) is passed through generations.

One time in P.E., I walked into my gym teacher's office because I needed something signed and a black girl was sitting in a chair, ice-pack on her swollen lip, talking about how her mother punched her in the face because she did something wrong, I don't know. She was remorseful, "I shouldn't have done it, it was stupid," without an ounce of resentment. She even laughed. I felt sick, especially because my teacher was so nonchalant about it. "What, your momma never smacked you?" No.

I'm not saying I know anything about that girl's family or her ancestors, but whenever I think about the whole 'beat your kids so your master doesn't kill them' pass down of abuse, I think of that.

As for Dobby, he is a special case as far as all the house-elves that Harry met in canon, which really isn't a lot. He only personally met Winky and Dobby, two elves that contrast the other. Dobby seems to be a puppy from the second group, and Winky a puppy from the third. Dobby clung to Harry because he was the first person who treated him kindly. And maybe something in Dobby's past made it so that he wasn't as brainwashed. He obviously had contact with other elves, like Winky. Maybe he saw how differently he was treated than Winky, learned from Winky that the Malfoys are Dark wizards, wizards Crouch despises.

TL;DR: Just because someone isn't upset by something done to them, it doesn't suddenly make it right. If it has the identifying factors of slavery, operates like slavery, and has a creepy form of dependence, it's slavery. And any form of slavery is wrong, even if the slaves are another species. You wouldn't want to be the pet of a superior extra-terrestrial, do you? Then, in the right mind, House-elves don't either.