Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2023
- Messages
- 2,512
You quoted me making reference to the cruelties of slavery, and you think it's appropriate to ask me why I like slavery?Why do you guys like slavery so much?
This is the exact thing I meant in my comment. You made that logic jump because you're peacocking. You're doing so very inefficiently, but you're doing it all the same.
Because you view yourself as "against slavery", and you see me criticizing you at all, you take my opposition to you to mean that I'm "for slavery"-- and not, as my words convey, frustrated with the lack of dimensionality in this discussion on the topic despite people discussing the topic and what could have been done instead while retaining this aspect of the setting. Also, I was slightly amused by your perceived peacocking in response to the narrative making Dion peacock (which I don't deny is happening).
But as far as they're aware at the time, it wasn't a good deal for them. Dion was sure that he set out to heal an emaciated child (who couldn't be expected to do much even if she were well), without even knowing if he could do so, and before said emaciated child was his responsibility. And even after healing said child, he still didn't buy her and yet A) chose to do so, and B) elected to pledge to achieve the means to manumit her (i.e. there is a process of manumission that costs money, and he presumably can't just set her free without her just being captured and either returned or put up for sale again)."I'm out to buy a slave but I need to make sure I get a GOOD one and not a CRIMINAL" Now watch as super benevolent Dion saves this slave's life while ALSO getting a good DEAL.
Nor did I claim that slavery is only wrong because it's the current year. But you're not taking into account the complexities and potential for contradictions in moral codes in general, and you might take certain topics as necessarily more related than they are."But this is just the world he lives in." Every body of power knows the wrong they are committing for the sake of their own betterment. Slavery isn't bad now just because its the current year.
At any rate, in a premodern society where chattel slavery is fundamentally allowed with state sanction, to persist as an institution, and without any broadly accepted religion or culture that prompts cognitive dissonance, even the "bad" that they may view it as is bound to be different, and what they consider to be "good" in proximity to the institution is also going to be different. The ancients had the empathy to know that slaves often suffered, and had the basic knowledge to know that slaves had diminished rights compared to the free man. Everyone that had a voice in their society decided to perpetuate this system for numerous generations, nonetheless. They understood slavery to be "not good" but also "part of the way the world works", and they had all sorts of entrenched rationalizations for it. In some societies, they reasoned that the slaves were a cosmic underclass. Slaves presumably frequently believed the same, while still believing that they were suffering. Despite this, they still readily had concepts such as love, virtue, mercy (acceptable and otherwise), et cetera.
We don't have such "divine order" ideas, not least of all because we live in a society where social mobility is far more possible than it was for those ancients. We largely understand slavery to be "very not good" partly because A) we have religions whose ethical codes created cognitive dissonance about the institutions for centuries, and B) we've had generations of people born into a world where there are more efficient means of production than raw manpower, which positions slavery as a thing that the average person (keeping in mind A)) can only really view as "unnecessary sadism".
This isn't about "slavery is good" and it isn't about "I like slavery". It's about "assess the morality of these characters, in the world that they live in, where slavery is an entrenched institution, because the premodern societies the author patterns this world after often featured an entrenched institution of slavery (beyond the prison system)". It's about "assess what slavery is"-- premodern societies experienced it as an actual part of their societies, and you often couldn't just manumit a slave by your own will. It's about "relevance"-- as in, I relate with the consternation better when it's just an isekai'd modern Japanese schoolboy that shouldn't be able to get behind something like slavery with how they've been raised, but participates in it without hesitation or circumstantial coercion.
Dion not slaying the people that attempted to murder him doesn't have to have much to do with how he views the institution of slavery. Those are two different concepts that implicate his apparent mercy and forbearance in different ways, by nature of what they are-- and those virtues are intelligible within the context of slavery, however diminished or twisted they are according to either of our moral frameworks (my moral framework, at least on this topic, reflecting an ethical code that I hold to be objectively true and all-valuable).
Think about it this way: in their context, can it not be construed as "mercy" that Dion, with his moderately meager means, takes this child out of this dank, dim, underground dungeon, places her in their new house, assures her care (let's be for real, she could be a complete loafer and he'll still take care of her) and promises to raise money for her manumission? Given Dion, would he not do the same for whichever person he bought? He can't buy every slave there. He doesn't want to buy or manumit criminals. He can't free the slaves by force in a society where slavery is sanctioned (talk less of doing so while discriminating for non-criminals). He can not participate in the institution, but then that child (or whoever else he could have bought) will continue to be in that dank, dim, underground dungeon and probably nobody else would care to buy her or even hypothetically have the means to dispel her curse (this is part of the point of the chapter's title and last page, interestingly).
Yeah. I don't disagree with that. Same as it ever was, seeing that harem manga and anime in the aughts was all about this. At least three women trying to jump one Japanese highschooler's bones by any means necessary just because he handed her a test sheet with a smile and didn't Batista Bomb her off the school rooftop when she was being bullied. Or said that her feet didn't stink when everyone else was telling her that her feet stank (because they did). Or because they're childhood friends that made an errant promise to marry each other before they knew what "marriage" was. Or because they're cousins, and the three year old him said he wanted to marry her.Because it should be used as a cheap way to show us how good our protagonist is but its used to get people (mostly woman) to trust (mostly fall in love) with our protag by doing the bare minimum.
Last edited: