The Force Awakens.

[Sarpedon]

Han Solo: "Let him have it. It's not wise to upset a Wookiee."
C-3PO: "But sir, nobody worries about upsetting a droid."

Those aren't the words of an AI who doesn't mind being treated as less than human.

But remember: C3p0 is a 'protocol' droid...designed and built to assist in diplomatic relations. He probably is programmed to take into account everyone's feelings, and to use language and persuasion to help everyone get along.

One thing I've always liked about Star Wars is how the droids have both their bodies and personalities molded to their functions, unlike most other sci fi movies of the time.

 

[Jayjay]

That's what's been said, but obviously incorrectly.

Obviously? It obviously is *not* obvious; or it wouldn't have taken 6000+ years of history for us to finally stop using the argument.

More than that, it isn't even necessarily incorrect. While true that humans as a species weren't 'made' to be slaves; they also weren't 'made' to be free. Indeed, the species wasn't "made" to do anything. *Individual* human beings, however, have explicitly been made with many purposes in mind over the history, including slavery. A slave-master who instructs his slaves to copulate with the intention of creating future generations of slaves, is, in a very real sense, fashioning himself a new set of tools. In such a scenario there is no special attribute that makes the slave-child fundamentally different from a tool in terms of its intended purpose: which means that the argument that a droid's slavery is justified by the fact it was made to be a tool also justifies some forms of human slavery.

Anything else is fallacious special pleading.

Or maybe that problem just doesn't exist in Star Wars universe. The slavery dilemma simply doesn't exist, just like a problem of how they can travel in hyperspace or why there is sound in space or how space monks with laser swords using "force" make any sense at all.

 

[dystopian]

Nonsense. The ancient Romans often freed slaves or they bought their own freedom and became freedmen with full rights and their children became full citizens. Obviously not everyone shares the idea of slaves not being human.

Rome does nothing demonstrate your point. *While* they were slaves, they were often treated exceptionally poorly in Rome; and you are no doubt overestimating the frequency and ease with which they were freed. Finally, even when they were no longer free they were still considered second class citizens; they were barred from many functions and were still legally obligated to their masters. They did *not* have full rights. It was only their children that enjoyed full rights. In fact, if anything, the Liberti (freed slaves) prove my point by only allowing their descendents the full rights of a citizen.

Machines are not human. They are tools. Droids are not humans or even alive. They are tools. Period.

Slaves born slaves are not human. They are tools. Period.

It is no different from your argument.

 

[bigfield]

I didn't get that impression from the books, at all. The robots' servitude was justified by the fact that they were made to be slaves.

The same cannot be said of humans, which is why the attitudes of 'droid/robot owners is not comparable to human slave owners.

Uhm... that's *exactly* what's been said of human slave populations, though.

For the majority of history, the circumstances of ones birth (ie; what you were 'made' to be) justified whatever treatment one received because of it. Born a slave? Whatever shit was thrown on you was entirely justified, including slavery itself. If you do not accept the argument that being born a slave justifies your enslavement, then you really shouldn't accept that argument when it concerns a sapient AI. The argument doesn't suddenly become valid because the subject's existence conforms to different conditions.

This is a false equivocation that is taking advantage of the imprecise language I've used.

Humans are not 'made' in the sense that they were designed with the purpose of servitude. Instead, human slavery is opportunistic, plus we know that it causes suffering and prevents humans from self-fulfilment. The argument that blacks, or Indians or any other race is meant to be enslaved is merely a backwards rationalisation, an excuse.

 

[credoconsolans]

Rome does nothing demonstrate your point. *While* they were slaves, they were often treated exceptionally poorly in Rome; and you are no doubt overestimating the frequency and ease with which they were freed. Finally, even when they were no longer free they were still considered second class citizens; they were barred from many functions and were still legally obligated to their masters. They did *not* have full rights. It was only their children that enjoyed full rights. In fact, if anything, the Liberti (freed slaves) prove my point by only allowing their descendents the full rights of a citizen.

The point being, do you release your hammer to move about in society? How about your car?

Ancient Roman slaves who were freed were obligated to their former owners, but it was barely enforced. They could, and did, leave their owners and never come back. Their former owners could do nothing about it.

They didn't have the full rights, but they could own property and have their own money. That was pretty important.

How about your BluRay player? Have you let it go off on its own yet?

Machines are not human. They are tools. Droids are not humans or even alive. They are tools. Period.

Slaves born slaves are not human. They are tools. Period.

It is no different from your argument.

No, my argument makes sense, while your argument sounds ridiculous since it appears you not only do not know what "human" means, but you obviously can't tell the difference between your refrigerator and an elderly woman.

 

[Underseer]

Uhm... that's *exactly* what's been said of human slave populations, though.

For the majority of history, the circumstances of ones birth (ie; what you were 'made' to be) justified whatever treatment one received because of it. Born a slave? Whatever shit was thrown on you was entirely justified, including slavery itself. If you do not accept the argument that being born a slave justifies your enslavement, then you really shouldn't accept that argument when it concerns a sapient AI. The argument doesn't suddenly become valid because the subject's existence conforms to different conditions.

This is a false equivocation that is taking advantage of the imprecise language I've used.

Humans are not 'made' in the sense that they were designed with the purpose of servitude. Instead, human slavery is opportunistic, plus we know that it causes suffering and prevents humans from self-fulfilment. The argument that blacks, or Indians or any other race is meant to be enslaved is merely a backwards rationalisation, an excuse.

Whether or not droids are made to be slaves is irrelevant. They are self aware and value their own existence.

Making intelligent beings for the express purpose of slavery is incredibly immoral, but my main beef with it is not how it looks from inside the Star Wars universe, but how it looks from the perspective of the audience. Lucas went out of his way to draw parallels with slavery (e.g. "We don't serve their kind here!"), then totally failed to address the issue in any meaningful way, and depicted heroes simply going along with it.

If we are going to talk about this from the perspective of being within the Star Wars universe, the way they casually and frequently wipe the memories of droids is probably more troubling than the slavery thing.

 

[abaddon]

Whether or not droids are made to be slaves is irrelevant. They are self aware and value their own existence.

Why assume that self-awareness automatically will include a desire to be autonomous? If you can brainwash a human to not want his autonomy, you’ve distorted his native instinct. Is it so with a bot? Or isn’t the wish for full autonomy a programming that must be added on top the mere self-awareness?

You have to catch people (or other animals) “in the wild” to make them slaves, the born-into-slavery ones resent it to the extent they retain a “program” to be more-or-less “wild” (since they don't have a direct memory of it). Workers don’t much like working because someone else takes most of what they make and this doesn’t seem fair, there’s definitely a programming there from birth, there’s definitely an innate nature there, humans are not blank slates at birth. Whereas bots are blank slates at birth. Someone needs to put the preference for autonomy there, so they could self-maintain (ie, seek out food and sex). And then you’ve got parity.

If we are going to talk about this from the perspective of being within the Star Wars universe, the way they casually and frequently wipe the memories of droids is probably more troubling than the slavery thing.

Yes, this is what got me when I watched the movies... if they love their bots so much, how could they be mean enough to wipe out their memories?

But still I don't recall any expressions of a desire for freedom by the bots. I only remember expressions of a desire to retain their memories, which means they did really want to remain their own selves but I don't know this necessarily means they wanted to be roaming-free, answering-to-no-one-else sorts of selves (might there be a variety of sorts of selves, including ones that just don't want to not be in service to someone or something?). And now, though, after I've argued that's a feature of our "programming", I'm wondering if it's not exaggerated some among Euros and Americans due to our cultural programming. We like to believe we're extremely autonomous and that that's a good thing. It's arguably not really true and arguably not so great a thing as we're programmed to believe.

 

[Underseer]

First building slaves with the desire to be slaves still isn't right.

If some nation out there found some kind of psychological conditioning for babies that would cause them to grow into adults that want to be slaves, would slavery be moral in that nation?

And for another thing, droids are depicted as not wanting restraining bolts.

If you create a sentient life, you automatically accept certain responsibilities for it.

 

[Archimedes]

These are just meandering new tales with characters I don't know and have no interest in.

"Characters I don't know"? Do you know what awesome movie featured "characters I don't know"?

Star Wars

 

[beero1000]

The point being, do you release your hammer to move about in society? How about your car?

Ancient Roman slaves who were freed were obligated to their former owners, but it was barely enforced. They could, and did, leave their owners and never come back. Their former owners could do nothing about it.

They didn't have the full rights, but they could own property and have their own money. That was pretty important.

How about your BluRay player? Have you let it go off on its own yet?

Machines are not human. They are tools. Droids are not humans or even alive. They are tools. Period.

Slaves born slaves are not human. They are tools. Period.

It is no different from your argument.

No, my argument makes sense, while your argument sounds ridiculous since it appears you not only do not know what "human" means, but you obviously can't tell the difference between your refrigerator and an elderly woman.

So much irony. You do know you're talking about a space movie filled with aliens, right? As in: not human. The very bar at which the droids are refused service is filled with non-humans. Are droids disallowed just because they're made of metal? Does an elderly woman with a replacement hip need to worry about losing her status as a person?

 

[Sarpedon]

Why would a crowded cantina waste space catering to patrons who don't drink? If you go to a busy bar and sit and drink a water, eventually you'll get bounced. Why even let something that by definition can't drink through the door?

 

[credoconsolans]

These are just meandering new tales with characters I don't know and have no interest in.

"Characters I don't know"? Do you know what awesome movie featured "characters I don't know"?

Star Wars

But I knew the basic story. Boy rescues princess in outer space.

Sounds cool.

What do I know about this story?

Nothing.

 

[credoconsolans]

Whether or not droids are made to be slaves is irrelevant. They are self aware and value their own existence.

Do they value their own existence? Or are they PROGRAMMED to value their own existence? Right now, people own expensive cars with various alarm systems. Is the car valuing its own existence and safety when a thief is trying to steal it and the alarm goes off?

So much irony. You do know you're talking about a space movie filled with aliens, right? As in: not human.

Don't get excited, it's just semantics. What was I supposed to say? You don't know the difference between a refrigerator and a Neimoidian?

The very bar at which the droids are refused service is filled with non-humans. Are droids disallowed just because they're made of metal?

Might be a couple of reasons. They're just dead space taking up room in an establishment whose services they don't use (loitering). Or possibly because the bar's patrons tend to be low-income people who resent droids because they take jobs away from living beings.

The GFFA might have their own version of Luddites.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If you create a sentient life, you automatically accept certain responsibilities for it.

Ya, that's what Child Protective Services keeps telling me. I don't buy that bullshit from them and I don't buy it from you.

 

[bigfield]

"Characters I don't know"? Do you know what awesome movie featured "characters I don't know"?

Star Wars

But I knew the basic story. Boy rescues princess in outer space.

Sounds cool.

What do I know about this story?

Nothing.

Heroes stop evil dude from taking over the galaxy.

 

[bilby]

But I knew the basic story. Boy rescues princess in outer space.

Sounds cool.

What do I know about this story?

Nothing.

Heroes stop evil dude from taking over the galaxy.

Spoiler!!

 

[Jayjay]

Another spoiler! Cover your eyes!

...

In a plot twist, someone will turn out to be someone else's father.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Also, the hero's mentor will die early, forcing the hero to find the way to win on his own.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Why even let something that by definition can't drink through the door?

Because they have a sign on the wall saying they support the Designated Driver program.

 

[Sarpedon]

A galaxy without handrails next to bottomless pits is a probably a galaxy without designated drivers.