Isekai Meikyuu de Harem o - Vol. 3 Ch. 13 - Party 1

[criver]

@starburst98: Here's a quote from chapter 3.2: "In the case of a young woman, whether she is a sex slave or not her duties are essentially the same.", "You're saying non-sex salves do the same work as sex slaves?"
So it obviously doesn't break any spell. In fact differentiating between non-sex slaves and sex slaves seems to be redundant if we go by the words of the slave trader. Since at the end of the day "the duties" are the same.

@littleoni:
You're trying to rationalize the thinking of the buyers a bit too hard. Considering that the price for sex slaves and non-sex slaves is similar, and that they are expected to perform the same "duties", a buyer would simply choose the one he prefers in term of appearance, regardless of what the slave is labeled as. I would argue that this is wrong: "if they can afford a dedicated sex slave, they will prefer to do so",exactly for the reasons presented above. In fact I don't see any reason why they would prefer a sex slave vs a non-sex slave if there's no actual difference and the two are equivalent up to the labeling.
My point about a partner refusing sex wasn't about the possibility for a partner to leave, it was about the fact that the "duty" you were talking about is still expected from partners in a relationship nowadays.
I also don't have any issues with one night stands, the only reason I avoid those is the higher risk of getting an STD (fwb is a lot better in that aspect). The fact that people used to pay prostitutes for sex, or rape women, doesn't really help your point that "sex has a deeper meaning nowadays", since they still do. On the other hand, the fact that virginity was generally saved for marriage in the middle ages and that pre-marital sexual intercourse was condemned, as opposed to sex being generally accepted also as an entertainment nowadays is a pretty strong argument that sex doesn't actually hold a deeper meaning.

 

[Someanon]

Guys, chill out, it's just a manga for fuck's sake.

 

[littleoni]

@criver
Yes I am rationalizing. If I things don't make sense after rationalizing them it's a sign of bad writting. About the preference of a buyer, again we come down to assuming that most peoples are not douchebags. Even if you wish to buy a slave, you still woud prefer to cause the least suffering possible, so buying a non sex slave (a slave that openly refuses to have sex) for sex purposes would make you a douche. It would also affect the long term performance of the salve in non sexual duties because of fear and hopelessness. Also, unless we are talking about a sadistic fuck, a person would not enjoy having sex with a crying, screaming, struggling and unwilling girl as much as they would with a willing one.
About the meaning of sex, my point is that for a girl who already knows she is going to be a slave, being made a sexual slave is not something to outright hate since having sex with a person who you don't like is not as much of a big deal. If that is the only hardship you have to go through and it will ensure a decent living standart, it's better than ending up in manual labor.
@Someanon
We are quite chill. We are enjoying a healthy argument, not throwing refrigerators at each other. I have not once thought of Criver in a negative way, and I don't think he feels differently about me.

 

[criver]

@littleoni: The issue is you're assuming too much rather than consider things from a realistic viewpoint. Your whole argument hinges on the assumption that most people adhere to some strict moral standards. But if that was indeed correct, they wouldn't be buying slaves, would they. The fact that a person can easily buy another as property should tell you enough about his moral standards. You think that the slaves are willing to work for free and be at the mercy of some random person? No. Their owner obviously doesn't care much about such "trivial matters" so I cannot understand why you believe that he would be bothered by raping his property. You're basically pitting moral standards vs comfort, desire, selfishness and profit. For all I know you are an idealist and you truly believe that morality would prevail in that case, sadly in the real world this is simply not the case. Now add to that the fact that this is happening in some dark medieval ages and you'll get the whole picture pretty fast. I simply don't think that your assumptions are correct. Idealistic - sure, realistic - not really. Also you might want to look up the meaning of 'rationalize'.
I also would not agree, that knowing that you'll be raped would make it any better. If anything you'll probably be terrified of the day this would happen. I also don't get why you think that being a sex slave would ensure a decent living standard, when the price for both types of slaves is similar (the difference is for male slaves).
@Someanon: Relax it's just a discussion.

 

[littleoni]

TL;DR: In a society where slavery is common, owning a slave =/= being a dickhead.
@criver
And there is where your viewpoint is plain incorrect. You can go back to Roman and Greek records about this exact issue. In the civilized world of 2018 we consider the mere idea of slavery as immoral and anyone who even thinks about the posibility must be a psycho. We are used to demonize slavery and can't consider it a part of our lives. This way of thinking is needed for the advancement of society, it's 100% correct and I'm not discuting that.
But if you abstract yourself and assume that slavery is part of society, it looks a different (I'm talking with some knowledge of having studied ancient history in a more or less serious way). Slavery was not as brutal as we are used to consider it. Abusing your slaves was not always even alowed by law and a slave could be bought out by the city if abuse was proven in some Greek cities. Even where it was allowed, it was usually frowned upon. Discipline was well regarded, but unneeded abuse was sign of cruelty and no one would want to be with someone openly cruel. It's a bit hard to explain, but bear with me. So if slavery is part of society, it's not a sign of a lack of moral values to own a slave. In fact, in a society where money transactions are not all that common, and where securing a means of survival is integral part of everyone's life, a slave is like a live-in maid (don't come with the BS that maids don't exist. They do, they just don't wear frilly dresses). Sure, a maid is protected by employement laws and whatnot, but it's not like hired hands were protected by much back in those days. Yeah, sure, a slave would not be paid in money (and in many cases neither would hired hands), and had no right to leave. But in a sense, as long as their master had a way to provide for them, they would be safe and would not lack the minimum needed for survival. The life of a slave was not that terrible as it's now depicted. There wre very little whips involved, no cells usually, there even was some medical asistance when it was needed. Just like you will take care of a horse pulling a cart, you will take care of your human cattle if you wish for it to serve you properly. Wartime slaves, gallera slaves (usually criminals) and the like are exceptions. They were treated very cruelly and would usually die shortly after becoming slaves. An average master will care for his slaves. Not being a dickhead is more or less free, and it can earn you some profit if it makes your slave perform better. An abused slave will live shorter. A beaten slave will tire faster. A hopeless slave will work slower. If a slave lives long enough and in an environment good enough for them to leave descendance, their offspring are also your slaves (in some cases. In Greece the second generation would get partial freedom and the third would get citizenship). It's not moral standarts what I'm valuing here, it's economical efficiency. So unless you get something out of abusing your slaves (you are a sadistic fuck who enjoys making others suffer), you will try not to abuse them because not abusing them brings more profit.

 

[criver]

@littleoni: I did not say that owning a slave automatically makes you a "dickhead", I said that such a person is obviously not adhering to strict moral standards. Since you like to reference ancient Greece, let me remind you that raping your slave was not considered rape. Let me also touch upon what seems to be the gist of your argument: "So if slavery is part of society, it's not a sign of a lack of moral values to own a slave.". This logic is flawed. By the same logic if rape, torture, murder or whatever you can think of, is "an acceptable" part of society and you partake in it "it's not a sign of a lack of moral values". The fact that everybody around you is morally corrupt, wouldn't make you less morally corrupt if you partake in their activities. If a person sees another as property, what makes you think that he values his slave's sexual freedom. Comparing a slave to a maid is simply a false analogy.
You mention that "an average master" would care for his slaves. I won't deny this. But he can "care" for his slaves as in provide for them with food and a place to live and at the same have sex with them. You argue based on "economical efficiency", however if you buy a slave for sex, this is obviously the primary concern. So one would buy a non-sex slave that has a better appearance than a sex-slave that he doesn't find attractive.

 

[littleoni]

@criver

If a person sees another as property, what makes you think that he values his slave's sexual freedom

I see no correlation. I'll explain it again. If a slave openly states she is against being used as a sex slave, then using her as sex slave will be seen akin to punishment or abuse to her. Case 1: the master is not rich enough to purchase another slave for sexual use, so he intends to use his slave for both work and pleasure; if the slave sees sex as abuse, she will be in a state of constant abuse so in the long run she will be hopeless. This is important. If a person has nothing to work towards (no hope), only fear will drive them. If a person lives in constant abuse, they have nothing to fear. Productivity will drop. So the master is not valuing the slave's sexual freedom, he is valuing her productivity. Case 2: the master prefers to buy a non-sex slave for sexual use because he likes her appearance more. In this case she will not be used for work so her productivity is not important. In this case he will have a lower quality sex slave who will eventually grow hopeless and rebel or suicide, not the best outcome for the master.
Yeah, sure a slave is more likely to get raped by her master than a free woman. But whether you agree to be a sex slave does affect the likelihood of being used for such purpose.
The analogy with the maid is made in assumption of only 0% dickheadness: the slave does what the slave is "contracted" to do and nothing more. In that case the analogy is not wrong.

I said that such a person is obviously not adhering to strict moral standards.

I don't like the use of the words "strict moral standards", it reeks of XX century. What deed is deemed evil? A person can own a slave and never go against the slave's will, will owning the slave be considered evil then? A person who picks up a beggar and makes them their slave and provides them with minimum sustain is deemed evil? Slavery is wrong this much is obvious. But that doesn't mean that in a society where slavery exists everyone is immoral. Slavery was always a system pushed by the wealthy who could make most use of it. By being wealthy they were powerfull, so their decisions were what mattered. You can flag them all as immoral, the accumulation of wealth usually comes along with evil in one form of another. But once the system is established, not making use of it is stupid, not moral. Almost every citizen of Athenes had at least one slave, if you went full "moral" and refused to buy one would it achieve anything? It would not even make the life of the slave you would have purchased better, since if you are all in for the morals, you would take good care of them and their hypotetical new purchaser may not.
In a sense, it's selling slaves what's most immoral, while purchasing them is only logical.

 

[criver]

@littleoni: I'll explain "the correlation" - if you see somebody as property, meaning you don't care about his freedom, why would you care about his sexual freedom.
"If a slave openly states she is against being used as a sex slave, then using her as sex slave will be seen akin to punishment or abuse to her." - If a slave openly states that he is against being used as a slave, then using him as a slave will be seen akin to punishment or abuse to him. Same logic - same ridiculous conclusion. Whether a slave is against something or not is immaterial to the owner if he cares about that "something" more than he cares about the wishes of his slave. That's the whole idea of a slave - the owner's wishes and desires come first.
"In this case he will have a lower quality sex slave who will eventually grow hopeless and rebel or suicide, not the best outcome for the master. " - Can you elaborate on "lower quality", and also "will eventually grow hopeless and rebel or suicide"? I don't know what you meant with "lower quality", but at least regarding "will eventually grow hopeless and rebel or suicide" simply does not agree with common human behaviour. If you were correct, then there would be no prostitutes that were trafficked as sex slaves. Also since you like to refer to ancient Greece, it also does not fit with the fact that there were prostitutes that were slaves. Obviously they were alive even if their life was pretty darn hard. And that's actually the main issue with most of your arguments towards not picking a non-sex slave - you make an awful lot of assumptions to justify it, which have to do mostly with what you would like to believe rather than what is the reality of the situation. Let's try to stick to Occam's razor and keep the assumptions to a minimum.

"A person can own a slave and never go against the slave's will, will owning the slave be considered evil then?" - No, but then the slave won't be considered a slave either. If you never go against the slave's will, that means that the slave is actually free. And we are not talking about a magical unicorn here either that buys slaves to just pay their rent and food. In general, slaves, both historically and by definition, had to be useful to whoever bought them. So if somebody buys a slave because he wants her for sex, he will make sure he gets his money's worth out of her.

"Once the system is established, not making use of it is stupid, not moral. " - I am not saying one cannot benefit from a morally corrupt system. Sure, it may be stupid to not use unethical means, however, using those does indeed make you morally corrupt. As I said, just because everybody is resorting to unethical means, doesn't makes these means any more ethical. The fact that a morally corrupt system is established doesn't make it ok. As already mentioned, if in a society everybody is taught to rape, murder and torture, that doesn't make a person any less morally corrupt for partaking in this whole thing. Sure, he may not know better, but that doesn't really excuse him. Granted you can treat your slaves humanely, however this is obviously not the same as freeing them, nor does it change the fact that the majority of people would look at them as property and treat them accordingly.
"It would not even make the life of the slave you would have purchased better, since if you are all in for the morals, you would take good care of them and their hypotetical new purchaser may not." - There's a difference between buying a slave and owning one. Buying a slave to free him/her doesn't make you a morally corrupt individual. Buying a slave to own him/her as property does in fact make you a morally deficient individual.
"In a sense, it's selling slaves what's most immoral, while purchasing them is only logical." - If nobody buys slaves, nobody would sell slaves. Purchasing another human being to own it as property is in fact immoral.

 

[littleoni]

@criver

If you see somebody as property, meaning you don't care about his freedom, why would you care about his sexual freedom.

For the same reason you would not use a good knife as a screwdriver. This only actually applies in the extreme cases. If a slave states that she does not want to be used for sexual pleassure, the ideal master will not, a good master may but will prefer not to, an average master is more or less equally likely in both cases. If a slave states that she would hate it, none of these masters would do it; but the slave would maybe end up being bought by a horrible master for sexual use, for an arbitrary master for labor, or go unsold. If a slave goes unsold for too long it's sent to galleras if he is a male and to soldier relief in case of females, both being way worse than death. A slave is usually intrested in being purchased, so if she is only incomodated by the idea of sex she will prefer to still state herself as a potential sex slave if she has the option. So what I mean with "openly states she is against being used as a sex slave" is the extreme case when the slave just can't tolerate the idea, because in any other case she will not make such statement.

Can you elaborate on "lower quality"

An unwilling sex partner will not collaborate, every time the master wishes to make use of he will have to go through the orderal of subduing her. She may struggle, cry and scream. The slaver may end up breaking her through punishment and reiteration, but that's an effort he has to make he would usually prefer not to.
About rebelling and suicide, it only applies in the case stated above: if the slave just can't tolerate the idea, it's going to be worse than any other punishment and she will expect nothing but torture after her day is over. If she gives in and accepts her fate, then she could tolerate it since the beginning and the case doesn't apply. If she really could not tollerate it, she will either go all-or-nothing and rebel trying to escape or murder her master or will commit suicide. It's completely against human nature, that was the exact fate of most female wartime slaves: either they accepted they fate or commited suicide, and it was more or less 50/50.

[...] not picking a non-sex slave - you make an awful lot of assumptions to justify it

I'm not making that many. My main point is that a person would prefer to pick a slave who has already accepted her fate rather than go through the effort of retraining one that has not. There has to be a really big appearance difference to justify weeks if not months of struggle.

If nobody buys slaves, nobody would sell slaves.

If only a small percentage of very wealthy people do the system will stay.
I'm not deffending the slavery system. I'm deffending the MC in his deed of purchasing a slave to make good use of her. You are talking like anyone who owned a slave back in the days would abuse them. Compared to average quality of life, non gallera / wartime slaves on average led a better life than your average Dark Age farmer. Can't you make a good use of your cart horse (property) so that it will live a longer life than a wild one? Yes, the master will order the slaves to do things they don't want to. The master will also make sure they survive for as long as possible, in a state they are as useful as possible. Famished, weak, beaten, depressed, ill, etc are not states where a slave is too useful. There were masters that didn't care (the more wealth, the lower the importance of one individual slave). But the grand majority of slave owners didn't treat their slaves much worse than their family. There were many cases (and it's ancient Rome, where everything gets recorded) of slaves either refusing liberation after their original master died leaving a will where he released them, or slaves that wished for their offspring to belong to the same family as they did. Most slaves had a degree of freedom, even days off (again, it increases productivity). They were not allowed to leave, they were considered of lower standing so any crime they commited was almost always punished with death, and there was no reason for them to be treated decently; but they were in many cases. Sexual slaves are a little different since they usually were raised to the position. Wartime female slaves were usually raped and thrown into a nobleman's dungeon to repeat the process until they died somehow, but I don't consider criminal or wartime slaves in the same bucket as the rest. So sexual slaves were usually trained from very young and would not understand what was wrong with selling their body.
Finally, I wanted to point out that ethics are relative. A person can only judge their own ethical values compared to everyone else, so you can't say that "... using those does indeed make you morally corrupt". It only does to current values of morality. Definition:

Morality (from Latin: mōrālis, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper. Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal. Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness".

 

[criver]

@littleoni:
I think that we fundamentally disagree on human nature. For one thing I don't think this is true: "the ideal master will not, a good master may but will prefer not to, an average master is more or less equally likely in both cases.". I believe that on average, if a person is given opportunity (especially an uneducated person) to fulfill his desires at the expense of others, he will do so. Giving somebody absolute power usually brings out the worst in them and results in the abuse of said power. This is exemplified by the quote from Lord Acton: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men...". Take also into account that young children are cruel and selfish. Which tells quite a lot about the inherent human nature. And while people are "taught" to act humanely, the fact remains that they are inherently selfish.

"The slaver may end up breaking her through punishment and reiteration, but that's an effort he has to make he would usually prefer not to. " - He would usually prefer not to if he had integrity. That's a big if. You should take into consideration that we're also talking about a premise where women are seen as inherently inferior to men.

"either they accepted they fate or commited suicide, and it was more or less 50/50." - Is that a random percentage, or is it based on some sort of evidence?

"I'm not making that many. My main point is that a person would prefer to pick a slave who has already accepted her fate rather than go through the effort of retraining one that has not. " - The more assumptions you make, the less likely it is that your statement is actually correct, at least if we go by Occam's razor. I also think you're underestimating human desire, selfishness and greed. I would argue that not only they would go through the effort of "retraining", but some would even enjoy "putting the slave in it's place".

"If only a small percentage of very wealthy people do the system will stay. " - I disagree. If the majority of people are against this, at the very least they will avoid making this public knowledge. And obviously it will be on a lot smaller scale. It's also noteworthy that there are civilizations (for example the Persian empire) in the same period as ancient Greece, that didn't implement slavery.

"I'm defending the MC in his deed of purchasing a slave to make good use of her. " - How exactly would you excuse the MC? I find it very hard to explain his behaviour as ethical. Maybe you can help me with that.

"You are talking like anyone who owned a slave back in the days would abuse them." - Not anyone, but rather on average, and the main goal wouldn't be abuse, but rather fulfilling the owner's desires. You're arguing that people's conscience would be a strong enough deterrent to them fulfilling their desires. I disagree with that. If that was true you wouldn't need laws. I think there are enough examples and psychological experiments to show that this is simply untrue. Game theory would tell you the same thing.

"Yes, the master will order the slaves to do things they don't want to. The master will also make sure they survive for as long as possible, in a state they are as useful as possible. Famished, weak, beaten, depressed, ill, etc are not states where a slave is too useful." - Raped is not a state that is not useful. Consider also that they didn't even know (scientifically) what depression is.

"Sexual slaves are a little different since they usually were raised to the position." - Do you have a source that you're basing this on?

"Finally, I wanted to point out that ethics are relative. A person can only judge their own ethical values compared to everyone else" - Certainly. And that's exactly what I was referring to, current values of morality. And I would argue that the current values hold a lot more weight, since we try to base those on scientific evidence concerning empathy, pain, altruism etc. Compare that to moral values based on prejudice, preconception and simply the inability to understand the other person. Our morality is based on objectively understanding the pain of another, being able to put yourself in the shoes of another. Is it perfect? Obviously not. But the more educated people become, the better they understand how to avoid inflicting needless pain.

 

[littleoni]

if a person is given opportunity [...] to fulfill his desires at the expense of others, he will do so

True and non discutable.

Take also into account that young children are cruel and selfish

Partially false. They are selfish, but not inherently cruel.

He would usually prefer not to if he had integrity.

Integrity or not, we are talking about weeks of chasing that slave around the house in the worst case scenario. And beating her up while trying to to get too hurt by her in the best. Just because she looked a bit better than a slave labeled as a sex slave (thus willing). Put yourself in the masters shoes, it's just a waste of time.

Is that a random percentage, or is it based on some sort of evidence?

I don't have the exact numbers, but you can get roman records, and some later ones too. It doesn't actually matter too much. The point would be that wartime slaves (slaves captured through force and not raised into slavery) weren't often used as sex slaves or household slaves. They went as relief and to heavy manual labor where they would just die at some point and no one would care, because they could not be efficently retrained.

I would argue that not only they would go through the effort of "retraining", but some would even enjoy "putting the slave in it's place

That is sadism. As we discussed in a couple of posts above, it's contrary to human nature and considered a perversion. It's now, and while in a lesser way, has always been. People who are actually able to enjoy other's suffering are not that common.

If the majority of people are against this, at the very least they will avoid making this public knowledge

For the majority to go against the powerful it must somehow affect the people in a negative way. And not just in a morally incomodating way, in a seriously wellbeing-threatening way. I don't think any regime has been overthrown only because people considered that the rulers were evil.

How exactly would you excuse the MC?

Morals are relative to environment or culture -> owning a slave is not inherently immoral.
Forcing a person to do agains their will is immoral -> make sure that the slave is willing (he asks the trader about the issue like 3 times).
Not purchasing a slave does not increase the slave's quality of life -> the purchase of a slave with the intention of giving her good treatment can be seen as a morally good deed.
He purchses her with selfish motives, but they are not evil, and can be seen as good under the correct light.

You're arguing that people's conscience would be a strong enough deterrent to them fulfilling their desires.

No, not their conscience. Their sense of monetary value. Wealthy masters were the most cruel since they didn't care about what happened to an individual slave, they could be replaced. But the wealthy are not the average. The average had one or two slaves and if they were unhappy they would underperform. I'm not talking "happy" as in having anything they wanted, but rather "unhappy" as in hopeless. I'm not talking about the exact case of rape as abuse, I'm talking about any kind of abuse. Rape was not seen as abuse, at least not with slaves. And most slaves would not care much since they had accepted the possibility and it didn't actually hurt them in any way. Yeah, by current standarts insane. As I said above, we tend to see sexual freedom as something very important while it was not regarded as such, and has not much of a reason to be regarded as more important than any other kind of freedom.

Do you have a source that you're basing this on?

Too lazy to go through the texts now. Essentially, not only sexual slaves, slaves were usually trained with a purpose. Maual labor, housekeeping, caretaking, teaching, entretainment. It was almost never the master's duty to train the slave, it was the traders. Also slaves were usually trained since very young. Wartime and criminal slaves worked differently and were usually sold in batch into very dangerous work (mines, galleras, construction, etc), as no one would want someone who was convicted of a crime nowhere near. House slaves were usually descendants of wartime slaves captured very young, or of people who ended up in slavery due to debt. The first generation would usually be sold to the city, who would put them on social work (repairing and cleaning the streets, assisting with bureaucracy, etc).

And I would argue that the current values hold a lot more weight,

And you would be wrong. Relativity of morals to the established ones is not more or less correct. The current moral standart is the most humane we have had in the history of forever, as far as I know. But you can't say that someone not adhering to it is immediately immoral. To act out of morality, you have to be able to judge the rightness of your choice, and that's always relative. So it has to be relative to the established morals or your own. By current morals it could be evil, but it was not done by current morals. There are many moral paradoxes due to this. For example: You have knowledge of a crime a friend of yours has commited. The crime has caused as much damage to the other party as it has caused good to your friend (he, for example, broke someone's door while running away from hooligans who wanted to beat him up and released the dog inside which has gone missing ever since). Your friend refuses to pay compensation. The moral code of the law encourages you to bring your friend to justice and make him pay for his deeds. The moral code of friendship would discourage doing so. There is also the point that your friend didn't have any bad intentions. Which is morally correct?

 

[starburst98]

huh, well look at that, i had forgotten that was said because it had been... a while since i read it. *scratches head*

 

[Kiriha]

Where's kronix when people having a good discussion? O wait, he can only think about boobs, sex and calling others beta cucklord lul

 

[Sinan]

Wow all these comments its like reading a book

Im here for the boobs so im not gonna bother myself with reading comments...

 

[woodrabbit]

WTF with this comment section ?

 

[criver]

@Kiriha: You simply seem pissed at the guy.

@littleoni:

Partially false. They are selfish, but not inherently cruel.

Some researchers would disagree: http://www.neacha.org/resources/cruelty%20paper.Inventory.pdf
I am not a psychology buff, so I cannot vouch 100% for this paper, I am just basing this on the fact that the journal has an acceptable impact factor. 30% is a big percentage though. Note also the conclusion that inherent cruelty doesn't change with age, maybe people learn to hide it better, but it doesn't simply go away. Obviously, if you know of more recent/better research that backs up your point you are free to prove me wrong. I certainly do not mean to say that this research is 100% correct.

Integrity or not, we are talking about weeks of chasing that slave around the house in the worst case scenario. And beating her up while trying to to get too hurt by her in the best. Just because she looked a bit better than a slave labeled as a sex slave (thus willing). Put yourself in the masters shoes, it's just a waste of time.

The average adult male can easily subdue the average adult female without putting in much effort, so this is really a non issue. Even more so in a time where people were expected to be physically fit. He doesn't have to beat her up either, just has to pin her down. That's assuming he won't have her locked up in the first place (you also need to take into account, that the slave trader would most likely have made sure that she is obedient in order to be able to sell her for more). There'a also the fact that for the most part people stop engaging in futile actions if they realize those are futile - she would accept her fate at some point, or as you mentioned she would kill herself. I would argue that the latter has a probability that's a lot lower. Which brings me to the point of the 50/50 percentage, which I believe is simply incorrect. Based on (not so recent) research, 13% percent of rape victims attempt suicide (refer to: DG Kilpatrick, CN Edumuds, AK Seymour. Rape in America: A Report to the Nation. Arlington, VA: National Victim Center and Medical University of South Carolina (1992)) and not 50%. To add to this, an owner obviously doesn't have these statistics, and most likely wouldn't even entertain the thought of this happening.

That is sadism. As we discussed in a couple of posts above, it's contrary to human nature and considered a perversion. It's now, and while in a lesser way, has always been. People who are actually able to enjoy other's suffering are not that common.

I agree, in some cases it is sadism, however, I am not aware of a publication that studies the prevalence of sadism in the general population, so I cannot estimate how likely that is. On the other hand, enjoying harming someone that you believe deserves it, is not by definition sadism, since this is a conditional response (sadism is not defined as conditional), and this is a lot more prevalent. No doubt, the owner would feel that his property deserves punishment for going against him. It has to do with the owner's views, so if he views his slave as property (which is a reasonable assumption considering the time period, prevalent morals and the fact that he bought a slave in the first place) or on the level of an animal, he would treat her accordingly, without necessarily having a sadistic personality disorder. Basically, it can also simply be explained by cruelty, pride and ego. The owner may not necessarily get off on the struggle/pain of his slave.

For the majority to go against the powerful it must somehow affect the people in a negative way. And not just in a morally incomodating way, in a seriously well-being-threatening way. I don't think any regime has been overthrown only because people considered that the rulers were evil.

Considering that you may become a slave one day is a pretty "well-being-threatening" idea, so it is a very good motivation. Even if you know that you will never be affected by this, I would argue that there are still enough reasons for a person to want to abolish slavery (and history does agree with me on this point). There are probably no regimes that have been overthrown only because of one thing (simply off the fact that people are diverse and they have different priorities), but slavery has been overturned obviously not due to a fluke. If people do not agree with "the powerful" you get an uprising or a revolution - you have plenty of examples in history - the best being probably the French revolution. And probably the most relevant to our topic being the American civil war. A major reason for it being slavery.

Morals are relative to environment or culture -> owning a slave is not inherently immoral.
Forcing a person to do agains their will is immoral -> make sure that the slave is willing (he asks the trader about the issue like 3 times).

You must realize that you're arguing semantics, but I'll address your argument nevertheless. Owning a slave doesn't technically make you immoral. However, the moment you issue an order (notice that I used the word order) for that slave is the moment where you have shown your true colours. You either buy a slave to free him/her or you buy him/her to use him/her as a slave, there's no middle ground. The fact that you will act nice to your slave while still using him/her as a slave doesn't change the fact that you're reducing a human being to property, you're simply not being needlessly savage about it.

Not purchasing a slave does not increase the slave's quality of life -> the purchase of a slave with the intention of giving her good treatment can be seen as a morally good deed.
He purchses her with selfish motives, but they are not evil, and can be seen as good under the correct light.

Purchasing a slave doesn't necessarily "increase" said slave's quality of life. It really depends on the conditions before and after. But let's assume for a second that you're correct in general.
The purchase of a slave with good intentions may or may not be a good deed. It really depends on your actions afterwards. As they say: "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".
If you free the slave after having purchased him/her, then sure you're obviously doing a good deed. However if you use the slave as a slave, then that's it, there's no doubt you are morally deficient simply off the fact that you can reduce an individual to your property.
He purchases a slave to use as a sex slave, and then goes through with it. Maybe you can clarify under exactly what light I need to consider his actions for them to be seen as "good"?

No, not their conscience. Their sense of monetary value. [...]The average had one or two slaves and if they were unhappy they would underperform.

How do you underperform exactly, as an object that the owner has sex with?

I'm not talking about the exact case of rape as abuse, I'm talking about any kind of abuse. Rape was not seen as abuse, at least not with slaves. And most slaves would not care much since they had accepted the possibility and it didn't actually hurt them in any way. Yeah, by current standarts insane. As I said above, we tend to see sexual freedom as something very important while it was not regarded as such, and has not much of a reason to be regarded as more important than any other kind of freedom.

I agree with all of this. But this is simply backing my point ,that there is no real motivation for choosing a sex slave over a non-sex slave.

Too lazy to go through the texts now. Essentially, not only sexual slaves, slaves were usually trained with a purpose. [...] Also slaves were usually trained since very young.

I have never heard of this, I would appreciate it if you could provide a source. In ancient Greece no distinction was made between slaves and sex slaves as far as I am aware. Here's an excerpt from wikipedia:
"Employing female and occasionally male slaves for prostitution was common in the Hellenistic and Roman world. Ample references exist in literature, law, military reports and art."

And you would be wrong. Relativity of morals to the established ones is not more or less correct. The current moral standard is the most humane we have had in the history of forever, as far as I know.

And specifically because it's the most humane I would argue that it holds more weight.

To act out of morality, you have to be able to judge the rightness of your choice, and that's always relative. So it has to be relative to the established morals or your own. By current morals it could be evil, but it was not done by current morals.

Performing inhumane acts due to ignorance doesn't make those any less despicable. Ignorance doesn't excuse savagery. It can only explain the reasons for it. I would argue that you should judge morality based on the most humane system available.

There are many moral paradoxes due to this. For example: You have knowledge of a crime a friend of yours has committed. The crime has caused as much damage to the other party as it has caused good to your friend (he, for example, broke someone's door while running away from hooligans who wanted to beat him up and released the dog inside which has gone missing ever since). Your friend refuses to pay compensation. The moral code of the law encourages you to bring your friend to justice and make him pay for his deeds. The moral code of friendship would discourage doing so. There is also the point that your friend didn't have any bad intentions. Which is morally correct?

First of all, there is no moral paradox regarding slavery, so your example doesn't really help your argument. Also don't mix up law and morality, the two are different. As for your example, after the fact you should realize that your friend is unwilling to pay compensation to an innocent person which is definitely unethical. Is it your job to report him though? Most probably not. I don't see much of a paradox here but whatever. Also not having bad intentions doesn't really excuse the result of your actions. It may only be useful to you in court.

 

[littleoni]

@criver
Children cruelty doesn't affect the current point, so we'll supress the issue. I don't have a paper at hand, but there are some that hold more or less the same weight as yours.

The average adult male can easily subdue the average adult female without putting in much effort

Well, yeah he can. Or maybe he cannot because he purchsed a mule or a gladiator as a sex slave while he is a merchant. Whether he can or cannot makes no difference. If he purchased an unwilling slave because of her apearance, she won't be as pretty while black and blue, struggling, crying and probably bound. And you can ask anyone, the woman has a big part in the man's enoyment of the act, a non collaborating partner will make for a worse experience.

you also need to take into account, that the slave trader would most likely have made sure that she is obedient in order to be able to sell her for more

Against the point. If she has been raised to be obedient she will tolerate it, so she doesn't fall into the category we are discussing.

I would argue that the latter has a probability that's a lot lower.

The probability of suicide is lower than 50/50. The probability of rebellion or suicide is more or less 50/50. Also your 13% only applies to one time rape victims. We are talking about abuse to the point of hopelessness. If a person raped once has 13% chance to go suicidal, imagine if that's the prospect for the rest of their life.
I will just ignore the part about sadism because it has again, derailed quite a lot from where we began. You are somewhat right, but my point still resides in the unwillingness of a person to go through an orderal if they have the chance not to without much of a tradeoff. (It would mean more if there was no chance to get a sex slave or of the price differed a lot).

Considering that you may become a slave one day is a pretty "well-being-threatening"

The chance of a random person to be sold into slavery is so slim it's ridiculous, and it seems that still holds true in the world depicted. The person would have to commit a crime (then they are accepting the risk), or go deep into debt (while you can argue this is not 100% voluntary because someone might get a loan out of neccesity, you would just die otherwise like what happened in the Dark Ages).

(and history does agree with me on this point)

Roman slavery was not abolished, it evolved into the feudal system. I will remind you that a lord had permission to rape his subjects in the Dark Age, they subjects could not leave the land, the land didn't belong to them so the lord could just kick them out, and they had to forfeit more than half of their production, they were not paid in money and if the lord killed one of his subjects he would most likely not be punished. American slavery was abolished in order to rally the slaves into battle, not because of morals. And feudalism was abolished in order to let the rich citizens become politically influential.

the best being probably the French revolution

Which had nothing to do with the masses, it was rallied by the rich in order for them to get political power. Before the revolution, no matter how rich someone was, they could not own land if they didn't have noble blood. After the revolution, anyone could purchase land; but people living in the land didn't see much of a change.

The fact that you will act nice to your slave while still using him/her as a slave doesn't change the fact that you're reducing a human being to property

Change the word slave for vassal, for employee, or for squire. The only difference being they cannot leave (neither could a vassal). In any of those cases you are making someone do something they would prefer not to in order to benefit yourself. You will argue that an employee gets paid, but the slave get's mantained, which is equivalent in a medieval society since no one has commodities. As long as you don't abuse the slave, you are not treating them as a slave, you are treating them as your underling, which seems to be totally fine.

You either buy a slave to free him/her or you buy him/her to use him/her as a slave, there's no middle ground.

Releasing a slave is akin to murder. A person with no properties or means of production will just starve to death. If you are talking about releasing them and then picking them up under your wing as an underling, their status has not changed. Consult the paragraph above.

He purchases a slave to use as a sex slave, and then goes through with it. Maybe you can clarify under exactly what light I need to consider his actions for them to be seen as "good"?

He purchsed a person willing to become a sex slave after making sure she was willing to become a sex slave and had nothing against him, while also promising to mantain her as much as he can, giving her a quality of life not much worse than his own.

How do you underperform exactly, as an object that the owner has sex with?

The woman has a lot to do with the man enjoying the act.

But this is simply backing my point ,that there is no real motivation for choosing a sex slave over a non-sex slave.

This assumes that everyone has the empathycal capacity of a brick, for once, because otherwise they would care. And I have also explained, just because she looks a bit better doesn't mean it's worth the effort of forcing her. Because if she is a sex slave you will not have to force her, you will just enjoy a good time.

In ancient Greece no distinction was made between slaves and sex slaves as far as I am aware

As explained above, slaves were trained with a purpose. Not just sex / non-sex slaves. You would not purchase a farm slave to teach your children, you would not purchase a sex slave to pull a cart, you would not purchase a gladiator to clean your house.

And specifically because it's the most humane I would argue that it holds more weight.

It doesn't hold more weight if it doesn't apply. You cannot apply a moral code where it's not applied. If there is no law or custom about littering, you can't consider littering unethical.

Performing inhumane acts due to ignorance doesn't make those any less despicable. Ignorance doesn't excuse savagery.

Acting without knowledge of the consequences has not morality. Acting without bothering to learn the consequences does. It all comes to intention, and it's what's hardest about morality. An action action can be more or less humane, but that doesn't change it's morality. Humanity of an action is how does the action affect humankind as a whole and every human individually, but a moral code could not be based on humankind. An action has moral weight only towards the codes applied to it, which could also be personal, not only cultural; but you cannot condemn someone for not applying your personal moral code, or a code that doesn't apply. Through history there have been many moral codes not based on humanity. Individual codes (still applied, injuring someone in self deffense is not considered immoral, it's not the most humane thing to do), familiar codes, nationalistic codes.

First of all, there is no moral paradox regarding slavery, so your example doesn't really help your argument.

Slavery as a whole, no, maybe, not 100% sure. It can be regarded as positive in some very weird cases I'm not going to bother with. The purchase of a slave is different. Example: You have barely enough income to sustain a slave, but for some reason have enough money to purchase one. You intend to give the slave as much freedom as possible and treat them as well as possible for you, but your means may at some point be unable to sustain them. You know that if you don't purchase the slave they will be purchased by another person who has better economical situation, but will mistreat them.
The whole point revolves in the possibility of purchasing a slave with the intention of giving them a better life than they would otherwise have. Don't come with the freedom argument, I'm not as free as to just abandon my job and run off, am I? Is there any reason that ensures a slave will lead a worse life than an arbitrary employee?
Also, let's try to keep this focused, we have derailed too much. Let's forget about Rome, Greece, and whatnot. It no longer helps our points. The argument was about the morality of the actions of the MC.

 

[criver]

@littleoni:

Or maybe he cannot because he purchased a mule or a gladiator as a sex slave while he is a merchant.

Galdiatrices were extremely rare, so this is an outlier and irrelevant to the general case. Also it doesn't help your argument either since a gladiatrix is not a sex-slave in the first place.

If he purchased an unwilling slave because of her appearance, she won't be as pretty while black and blue, struggling, crying and probably bound. And you can ask anyone, the woman has a big part in the man's enjoyment of the act, a non collaborating partner will make for a worse experience.

As explained a male can easily pin down a female, so she doesn't need to be black and blue. Also if the owner wanted to just have a female act as if she enjoyed the act with him he could obviously pay a prostitute. Since he bought a slave, that obviously means that he was willing to shed a lot of money because he likes the appearance of the slave enough. So it's obvious that in this case: the enjoyment of the slave < the appearance of the slave. Not only that, but as already explained, humans refrain from futile actions, at some point she'll just accept her fate.

Against the point. If she has been raised to be obedient she will tolerate it, so she doesn't fall into the category we are discussing.

An obedient slave doesn't necessarily equal a sex slave (at least by the definition in the LN/WN, which has nothing to do with the actual definition). So my point stands. She may be against having sex, but will simply not show it, since it will not benefit her in any way.

The probability of rebellion or suicide is more or less 50/50.

You cannot state that without anything to back it up, at present these look just like random numbers that you would like to believe. Basically a non argument.

If a person raped once has 13% chance to go suicidal, imagine if that's the prospect for the rest of their life.

That's assuming that this percentage would grow, rather than decrease with desensitization and adaptation.

You are somewhat right, but my point still resides in the unwillingness of a person to go through an ordeal if they have the chance not to without much of a trade-off. (It would mean more if there was no chance to get a sex slave or of the price differed a lot).

Obviously. But my point is no that if you have two identical slaves with identical prices one being a sex-slave and the other a non-sex slave that you would pick the non-sex slave. My point considers the realistic scenario where the slaves are not identical. In which case a buyer will simply pick whoever he fancies more if it's within his budget. Stuff like categorization would surely be secondary.

I will remind you that a lord had permission to rape his subjects in the Dark Age, they subjects could not leave the land, the land didn't belong to them so the lord could just kick them out, and they had to forfeit more than half of their production, they were not paid in money and if the lord killed one of his subjects he would most likely not be punished.

What's your point exactly?

American slavery was abolished in order to rally the slaves into battle, not because of morals.

Your statement is simply wrong, there were obviously moral reasons. Slavery was illegal in the north from the end of the 18th century.

Which had nothing to do with the masses, it was rallied by the rich in order for them to get political power. Before the revolution, no matter how rich someone was, they could not own land if they didn't have noble blood. After the revolution, anyone could purchase land; but people living in the land didn't see much of a change.

It had very much to do with the masses, you're simply taking into account only the bourgeoisie, while there are many more causes that were just as major. One of the main reasons were social inequality and the enlightenment. I was simply proving your previous statement wrong:

I don't think any regime has been overthrown only because people considered that the rulers were evil.

People indeed realized that their rulers were "evil", since they were introduced to the ideas on the enlightenment. They realized that they don't have to literally be slaves to the monarchy. So it is very much about considering the ruling class as "evil".

As long as you don't abuse the slave, you are not treating them as a slave, you are treating them as your underling, which seems to be totally fine.

Seems to be totally fine? Says who? You can rephrase it however you want, the fact remains that you're reducing a human being to property that has no rights. Not abusing the slave is, as I explained, simply not being a savage, you'll still be a person that reduces human beings to objects though. Freeing said slave and then hiring him as a free person is an entirely different thing.

Releasing a slave is akin to murder. A person with no properties or means of production will just starve to death. If you are talking about releasing them and then picking them up under your wing as an underling, their status has not changed. Consult the paragraph above.

Few people are so useless that they wouldn't be able to do any job. Starving to death as a free person is a lot less likely than as a slave also, since you're not at the mercy of some other person. No doubt if you're a slave and there's not enough food, then you will be the first to starve. Releasing somebody and then hiring him is a totally different thing. He is not at your mercy any more. You do not hold his life in your hands, so it's a totally different scenario.

He purchased a person willing to become a sex slave after making sure she was willing to become a sex slave and had nothing against him, while also promising to maintain her as much as he can, giving her a quality of life not much worse than his own.

"Willing" is certainly not an adequate word. She simply chose the lesser of two evils. There's no need to sugarcoat it. He bought a human as if it was livestock and used said person to fulfill his carnal desires. There's nothing ethical about the whole thing. But here's the kicker: he actually is very well aware of the implications of what he's doing, he is a person from the 21st century after all, so you can't even "excuse" him based on ignorance, he's simply that morally corrupt. Acton's quote is even more true in this case: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. ". The MC was given power, and he made sure to "use" it at the first opportunity to fulfill his desires. It's sad and pathetic honestly.

The woman has a lot to do with the man enjoying the act.

If the man actually cared about said woman. You reasoning never stopped people from getting trophy wives that they are well aware do not love them. It's simply lust.

This assumes that everyone has the empathycal capacity of a brick, for once, because otherwise they would care.

You're disagreeing with yourself:

if a person is given opportunity [...] to fulfill his desires at the expense of others, he will do so

True and non discutable.

I specifically made sure that you agree that conscience is not a strong enough deterrent. So let's be consistent, shall we.

And I have also explained, just because she looks a bit better doesn't mean it's worth the effort of forcing her. Because if she is a sex slave you will not have to force her, you will just enjoy a good time.

So somebody's buying a slave fueled by his lust, and you expect him to not care about the appearance of the slave but about her feelings? That's very naive.

As explained above, slaves were trained with a purpose. Not just sex / non-sex slaves. You would not purchase a farm slave to teach your children, you would not purchase a sex slave to pull a cart, you would not purchase a gladiator to clean your house.

You should consider that the majority of slaves were not houseborn, but acquired through war, piracy or due to debt/breaking the law. SO there's no way they were "trained". Obviously they did have a job previously, so they would be relatively good at said job. And with regards to our argument, are you implying that Roxanne is a houseborn slave, that was trained as a sex-slave?

It doesn't hold more weight if it doesn't apply. You cannot apply a moral code where it's not applied. If there is no law or custom about littering, you can't consider littering unethical.

Why would it not apply? You just stated that it doesn't, you didn't explain why. If there's no law against littering, it doesn't magically makes this a good thing. Why would I not be able to consider it stupid and harmful? But that's a bad example, since littering is not really about morals. Let's take a more relevant example. If it's customary to perform inhumane despicable acts, that doesn't make it ethical. And yes, as I said I am judging this based on current moral standards. There's no reason not to. Ignorance is not a viable excuse for performing inhumane acts, it simply means the ones performing those acts are uneducated savages that cannot understand or do not care about the pain of another.

Acting without knowledge of the consequences has not morality. Acting without bothering to learn the consequences does. It all comes to intention, and it's what's hardest about morality.

You know what they say: "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". Your intentions don't really matter at the end of the day, it's the results that matter. You cannot purport to morality if you're performing unethical acts, regardless of whether you're simply ignorant or evil. Ignorance can only serve to explain why you you were more likely to perform unethical acts, it doesn't excuse those. Nor does it make them more ethical. You have an analog in law, namely the phrase: "ignorance of law excuses no one". Here's some reading material on the subject: http://brian.weatherson.org/moral-ignorance-excuse-2014.pdf , http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.494.8502&rep=rep1&type=pdf , http://www.princeton.edu/~grosen/ODFF/ODFF.html
As you will notice, people have argued (a lot better than me) that ignorance is exculpatory at most if you can prove that the subject is clinically insane.

An action action can be more or less humane, but that doesn't change it's morality. Humanity of an action is how does the action affect humankind as a whole and every human individually, but a moral code could not be based on humankind.

You seem to have things vice-versa while agreeing with me, so I am not sure whether it's just a misunderstanding. Just to make sure we agree: it's the humanity of an action that doesn't change, not morality. People's morals differed with place and time. Humanity on the other hand is an intrinsic property to humans. And this whole thing is actually digressing from the main point. The MC clearly knows what he's doing.

you cannot condemn someone for not applying your personal moral code, or a code that doesn't apply.

I can condemn someone based on him performing inhumane acts since humanity is universal. I can also apply current moral standards since they are for the most part based on one being humane.

The purchase of a slave is different. Example: You have barely enough income to sustain a slave, but for some reason have enough money to purchase one. You intend to give the slave as much freedom as possible and treat them as well as possible for you, but your means may at some point be unable to sustain them. You know that if you don't purchase the slave they will be purchased by another person who has better economical situation, but will mistreat them.

I'll ignore the ridiculousness of "barely" being able to sustain a slave, but being able to buy him at the same time, just so that I would be able to address your example. First you don't know whether another person will mistreat the slave. Second, you can just free the slave with the condition that he works off the money you bought him for, basically as a worker in debt (where you obviously do not have the right to rape him or kill him).

Don't come with the freedom argument, I'm not as free as to just abandon my job and run off, am I? Is there any reason that ensures a slave will lead a worse life than an arbitrary employee?

You are actually free to leave your job and your employer cannot rape you, kill you or punish you (except with regards to the contract you yourself have signed) without consequences. That's a big difference. You're not property, you're a person with rights. You can leave your job - whether that's a financially reasonable decision is a whole other matter.

Also, let's try to keep this focused, we have derailed too much. [...]The argument was about the morality of the actions of the MC.

Definitely, feel free to ignore any arguments that you deem are irrelevant to this.

 

[littleoni]

@criver
Let's simplify then. I will be stating my points, your counterpoints and my explanations of them. We have drifted into the realm of refferences and exact numbers and those don't help.

1: We can consider the MC to be morally good or at least not evil by pretty much any standart.
Your point here is that slavery is inherently unethical so the MC cannot be considered good. You also state that the purchase is out of selfishness and thus has not justification.
My point would be that the purchase of a slave can be ethical even if the slavery system is not as a whole. I also state than selfishness does not equal evil by itself (you can do something to please yourself and still damage no one).

2: You agree with the part where a purchase of a slave can be ethical, but only if the slave is released immediately after.
My point is that a person without means has nothing to do with the freedom that would provide. The solution to this is release and hire for the same position they would take as a slave. In the world depicted, that is worse than being a slave, since the master is bound by contract to support the slave, and doesn't have such obligation to an employee. The only solution would be a slave-like contract that's just beneficial to the slave and offers no real advantage to the master. Technically the most moral of all options, but it would not make much sense from a social point of view and would not change the position of the slave in any way (they would still depend of their master, the only difference is that now they can voluntarily go and die somewhere else of starvation). It's idealism saying that anyone would find a way to sustain themselves. Go ahead and try. Leave home with no money on and no job, and don't come back in one month.

These would be the two main discussion points about the morallity of the MC
Now there is another issue. We talked about sex slaves and non-sex slaves and why would a slave chose to become one or the other, and why would a customer chose one or the other.
As for why would the slave, we agree that any slave that can tolerate having sex with a stranger should sign up as sex slave. It lowers her chances of going into hard labor or running into a horrible master (lowers but not removes).
As for why would a customer care about the distinction ... Here is where I become completely lost. I don't see why they would not.
A sex slave has accepted the possibility, she will be more willing and so the act will go smoother (no struggling, crying or whatever).
A sex slave could have been trained (while a non-sex slave has surely not) to satisfy their master, so the act will probably be more enjoyable.
And finally, while you can say that a person will trample others to fulfill their desires, this is limited. It's not an absolute, it has degrees, that's what empathy is about. We are all more or less selfish, we cannot fathom doing something that doesn't benefit us in any way or another (even if it's the self satisfaction of doing a selfless act, it's still personal benefit). But most people will not commit brutal crimes even if there is no laws about it. Also the satement that any person who is willing to puchase a slave is already selfish enough not to care about their feelings has no basis. In a society where slavery is common, purchasing a slave has no moral meaning (we are not talking about the MC here, we are talking about the general case of a person contemporary to the system). The statement that they could go to a prostitute instead and save themselves some money and moral values has too many holes. A prostitute is an one time deal, it will cost you more on the long run. A prostitute is dangerous in terms of diseases. In a society with slavery a prostitute is probably a slave so you are not saving much face in terms of morality either.

 

[criver]

@littleoni:
Let's go with that then.

1. I do not agree that we can consider the MC as "morally good" or not "evil". He is morally corrupt, and I will present my arguments as to why that is so. I will break down the manga by chapters so that I can build a full picture of the character of our MC:

Chpater 1-2:
He has killed people. You may argue that he was protecting the village from bandits. However, he could have let the rest of the bandits surrender after killing their leader, he murdered everybody nevertheless. You can also argue that he killed them because he thought it was all a game, however as already noted (refer to the relevant links in my previous reply) ignorance excuses neither lawfully nor morally. At this point one may still believe that he has some sort of conscience. But what do we see after that? His feelings of "guilt" are certainly short-lived, and they can be summarized by his thoughts: "I am not even proud of that moment when I sliced through that guy's stomach". That's it, this is as far as his feelings of "remorse" go. A few minutes later he's all pumped and ready to go, and the next day he takes his "reward" for murder without much hesitation and accepts to sell a person into slavery.

So what do we have so far:
Murder: check.
Lack of remorse: check (further reinforced by taking the property of his victims).
Failure to accept responsibility: check (rationalizes his actions).
Impulsive and reckless: check.
Deception: check (though I would argue that it was necessary in his case).
Failure to conform to social norms: check (at least in accordance to the social norms of his time, since these are the ones he's used to and knows best).

Just based off of these he has an antisocial personality disorder (he is basically a sociopath).

But let's go on:
Chapter 2, page 19: "Thinking of people as equal is kinda tiring".
Disregard for other people: check.

Chapter 2, page 23: "A brothel. It's a place where you can live out all of your romantic fantasies"
Cannot differentiate between lust and romance : check.

Chapter 2, page 27: "The bandits were only small fries that were easily defeated in one stroke"
Not only lack of remorse but also arrogance: check.

Chapter 2:
Sells a person in slavery.
Further reinforces disregard for others.

Chapter 3.1, page 3: "If I can sell a slave then buying a slave is pretty much a given".
Uses his unethical actions as a rationale for more of those. By this point it should be obvious that his moral compass is MIA.

Chapter 3.1, page 3-4: "If I buy a slave could I really do whatever I want with them!?"
At this point he is thinking about a human as an object or property. Emphasize further disregard towards others.

Cahpter 3.1, page 6: "But isn't buying slaves supposed to be a crime? No... that's just the logic of present day Japan"
Note that his desire to buy a slave is fueled only by lust at this point. So he is more than ready to sacrifice his previous morals and principles to fulfill his carnal desires. Society calls such people morally corrupt.
And once more he uses him performing unlawful (obviously not in the new world) and unethical acts to rationalize his desires:
"It's not like I haven't had anything to do with the buying and selling of slaves either"

Chapter 3.2, page 3: "I can buy Roxanne?"
Swap that for "I can buy a human?" - more of our MC's shenanigans.

Chapter 3.2, page 9: "Have you ever considered buying a slave? ...Not really."
I am not sure who he's trying to deceive at this point. Both the owner and he know that he has considered it, otherwise he wouldn't be there in the first place.

Chapter 3.2, page 14: "Is a virgin slave's value... different?"
Out of all the things the MC could be worried about, it's the money. At this point there's no doubt that he has no issue seeing another human as an object that he can buy to satisfy his lust.

Chapter 3.2, page 17-18: "But, is it ok for me to buy a slave? But if I don't buy her, she'll be bought by someone else."
Red herrings his out of that one. It's still not ok, he's just trying to rationalize it. And you can actually see the culmination of that thought process on the next page, he still cannot give an answer to his own question. What we see instead is this: "Even after saving a beautiful knight's village, I couldn't have my way with her." - This clears up what the MC's values are beyond doubt. His primary concern is whether he'll be able to satisfy his lust, and everything else is secondary (even murder).

Chapter 3.2, page 21: "I don't want to admit it, but there's a part of me that wants to buy."
The understatement of the year. It seems like all of his actions are motivated by one thing alone.

Chapter 3.2, page 22: "Morals and feelings aside, it's physically impossible."
As if morals and feelings were a factor anyways - two pages later he's certain he'll buy her.

Chapter 4.2, page 21: "Let's hunt some golden heads."
Seems like our MC is ok with murder at this point if he can profit from it.

Chapter 5.2: Murders a bunch of thieves in cold blood in their sleep.
Our MC is definitely a paragon of justice, morals and humanity. /s

Chapter 6.1, page 11: "I'm confirming. I've got the feeling I haven been ripped off, and I want to confirm just how far she intends to let me go."
Apart from the ridiculous dishonesty and rationalizing of his actions as "confirming", he specifically thinks "how far she intends to let me go" not whether she enjoys this. The MC is well aware of his position and actions.

Chapter 6.1, page 12: "It is unfortunate, but I have no intention of letting you go."
This basically read as: "I will have my way with you, whether you like it or not". You don't see much enthusiasm from her either, it's pretty obvious what the situation is.

Chapter 6.1, page 13: "Probably, it would be fine even if I pushed her down right here."
This speaks enough by itself. Do you really believe that a person with integrity has such thoughts?

Chapter 6.2, page 16: "I will have her let me see them."
Note that this is not something up for discussion in his mind, regardless of what she thinks and wants.

I think that's more than enough evidence to show the moral corruption of our MC. Not only is he morally corrupt, but he's considered a sociopath by today's standards based on his actions till now.

2: You agree with the part where a purchase of a slave can be ethical, but only if the slave is released immediately after.

Since I want to keep this short I'll ignore this since it obviously doesn't apply to the current scenario. Suffice to say I don't agree with you, I can go into details as to why if you insist.

As for why would the slave, we agree that any slave that can tolerate having sex with a stranger should sign up as sex slave. [...]

No, you agree with that statement and the ones following it, I do not. But as explained, I will not pursue this further since it just detracts from my main point. Once again if you insist that this is relevant in some way to my point, I can go in details. I will just summarize why I believe most of your arguments do not hold much weight: you're assuming too much, you're using outliers as examples rather than make an argument based on the average, or you simply do not present arguments in some cases.