Trevelyan
Posts: 526
Joined: 6/12/2006
From: Mountain View, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Leonidas
Ok, here's a question that I think will challenge us a bit. One that puts a light on a (seemingly, anyway) stark contradiction between traditional (where we live) definitions of being a "good man" and a Gorean definition.
You're the Captain of the Titanic (the Gorean version). She's going down. There are enough lifeboats for all of the free men, and women, but if all of the free men and women are seated, the slaves will be left behind. Who makes it to safety, and who goes down with the ship?
No rhetorical waffling and side-stepping if you please. Confront the question head-on.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Leonidas
I'm with Marcus on this Trevelan. I'm sure you've been reading the books seriously, as Marcus and I have for a long time. After all these years and several readings there isn't much doubt in my mind that a Gorean Captain would give the order as I described it above. I'll give you a "quote by quote" examination if you'd like, but your "overall sense" is the correct one, regardless of whether there is "scripture" to back it up. At the end of the day, a typical Gorean free man, as described in the books, would be pretty damn offended by the notion of a slave (any slave) being seated in a lifeboat before free men and women.
Some of the posture and bluster in this thread aside, it's good to ponder why that is. There is no doubt that our instinct to protect and defend our women is a strong, inborn biological drive. It has been reinforced in our upbringing where our fairytales and legends are filled with examples of altruistic sacrifice and chivalry. Are slaves really "our women" though, in the same sense that the free citizen women of our polis are? The structure in the books says no. They are chattel. They have no standing before the law, and no expectation of protection beyond the protection usually accorded to valuable property. Do we, as a community, think it is just to reduce some humans to the status of chattel?
Kirata's answer is no. He rejects that notion. In his mind a slave women is just as much one of "our women" as a free citizen woman, and deserving of the same protection by the men. If we say "being Gorean doesn't trump being a man" the morality of keeping slaves in the first place starts to unravel. We would give them a seat in the lifeboat, but we would also watch them be sold on the block into an uncertain future not of their choosing?
Look at the hard question, my friend, and don't be seduced by the pat, manly answer.
Tal Leonidas,
The hard question is "Is it immoral to save the lives of the free by putting them in the lifeboats, at the sacrifice of the lives of the slaves?"
My answer is that in the Gorean point of view it is perfectly moral (good, right) to sacrifice the lives of the slaves to save the lives of the free.
Gorean slaves are just that, slaves. They are the property of and wholly subject to their owner. They have no rights. Anything can be done with or to them, for they are slaves.
The Gorean philosophical justification for slavery, in my opinion, is a combination of the values of personal sovereignty, allegiance to one's community and the Gorean morality.
Goreans value personal sovereignty very highly. A person who maintains their personal sovereignty is free. A person who does not maintain their personal sovereignty is appropriately a slave.
Goreans value allegiance to one's community. A slave is not a member of the community; they are property. A member of the community owes no allegiance to a slave.
The Gorean morality says that people are not equal. Some are superior, some are inferior. If a person fails to maintain their personal sovereignty, they demonstrate their inferiority. The Gorean morality's bent towards conquest rather than accomodation indicates that if a person demonstrates inferiority, the appropriate thing to do is to conquer them, or in other words enslave them. If they deserve to be free they will free themselves. If the do not, they will not.
So, slavery, from the Gorean point of view, is philosophically justified and moral. Slaves are property and have no rights, so it is entirely moral to sacrifice their lives to save the lives of the free.
BUT
The actual question you asked at the beginning of this thread was "Who makes it to safety, and who goes down with the ship?"
I believe that the answer to that question is not as simple as the answer to the hard question.
Goreans generally see their slaves as valuable property. Like people from Earth, Goreans protect their property, at least up to the point of its value to them. In the example of "what would you take out of a burning house", most people would get the humans out, then the animals, then the inanimate objects that they valued the most. I think it was in Dancer that Hendow tracked a missing slave halfway across Gor, simply because she was his property, and he wanted his property back. So, I think in this scenario, at least some of the free would want to save their slaves, simply because they are valued property.
In some cases, Goreans love their slaves. A Gorean does not necessarily love a slave, but some do. Kamchak, Rask of Treve, Forkbeard, the guy in Tribesmen, the Red Hunter in Beasts, Jason, the guy in Kajira, the guy in Dancer, and more that I am forgetting, loved their slaves. I cannot imagine any of those Gorean men just letting their slave go down with the ship.
I think too there is a philosophical value that must be considered. The Gorean morality is bent towards defiance rather than resignation. It does not seem very Gorean to me to quietly take your seat in the lifeboat if you have any desire to save the slave that you are leaving on the ship. If you don't have any desire to save him or her, fine, leave them. But if you want to, do so.
So, is it moral to give the lifeboat seats to the free? Yes. Who makes it to safety, and who goes down with the ship? Well, probably proportionately more of the free will make it to safety, and more of the slaves will go down with the ship, but the answer won't be as simple as who is free and who is slave. I think that some of the free will make some effort to save some of the slaves, possibly at the risk or loss of their own lives.
I will make one change to the plan I outlined earlier in the thread. First priority in the boats go to the free. If a free person wants to give up their seat to save a slave, fine with me. I, as Captain, will still take action to save those who don't have a seat in a lifeboat, if for no other reason that I think it is in line with the defiant aspect of the Gorean morality to do so. And besides, if I save them, I think all of those slaves become mine.
I wish you well,
Trevelyan
PS - If one of the slaves I am trying to save gets morally conflicted because a free man is risking his life to try to save her, she had better still obey me perfectly as I attempt to do so. If she does not, I have no problem throwing her over the side, presumably to her death, to get her out of my way. After all, she is only a slave.
_____________________________
"In short the differences between the men of Earth and those of Gor were almost certain to be primarily cultural, and not physiological."
Mercenaries of Gor
|
RE: Women and Children First - 
Profile
In due time, in due time. ( I know, I know more incessent prattling about my friggin' wench)
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread