Saga Are Droids slaves?

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/vi...gade-cut/40697-renegade-cut-are-droids-slaves

What do you think about the role of droids in the SW universe? Do you consider the way droids are treat merely for comedic effect without any malicious intent, or is this a serious ethical problem in the galaxy far, far away?

 

In the movies I'd say they're the comedy relief/sidekick and the useful tool- R2 can hack into computers for example

In some of the books I've read, droids can be treated pretty poorly in some areas of the Galaxy. Not trusted, called names, memories constantly wiped, and I doubt all or most have a choice about it. So some are basically slaves, yes.

 

Tools, utilities, etc... Not slaves.

 

Droid are not living things, they have no feelings, they are tools. Like your washing machine, or your dish washer. They are unable to be slaves.

 

Yes, and so is my computer. Poor thing has to endure me forcing it to search cute kitten videos all day on YouTube.

 

Droids in the SW universe seem to exist on a continuum ranging from mere automata to self-aware creatures. They certainly don't fall in the same category here.

Anyway, I'm not sure where the slavery issue would come in. I mean, yeah, droids are property in the SW universe, but they don't seem to disagree with that notion, presumably because they're programmed to accept that. If they're motivated to accept that they're owned, is it really slavery?

One might argue--for argument's sake-that in real life, some actual slaves might have been so well-off (or for whatever other reason) that they didn't object to their position as slaves. Well, at least those real-life individuals had the option to object to their slavery; droids programmed to accept ownership don't have that option. Does that make them slaves? I don't know. But it certainly doesn't make them slaves in the same way that human beings with "free will" (whatever that means, in this context) can be enslaved. Or, for that matter, where droids who lack this kind of programming could potentially by enslaved.

 

Droids? No. Clones? Yes.

 

Most people, including GL in interviews, are intent on maintaining that droids are not self-aware or experiencing. But that's not what the films told me. They wanted me to care if threepio and artoo made it in the escape pod, wanted me to be sad when r2 was hit in the Trench run, wanted me to see the medical droid on hoth as a gentleman. They are portrayed as characters with emotions and because of this I can't accept that answer. Yes, certain droids are no more than computers (like most battle droids, it's how they're portrayed) but enough have fully developed personalities for me to think the way they're treated is wrong.

 

This is another reason why I dislike the PT...its depiction of droids makes them more like sentient beings than droids in the OT were, but even as it does this these droids are simply being used as lightsaber fodder in order so that all the dismemberment and mutilation that happens on-screen is acceptable to the audience.

 

How? You barely see droids in the OT, and those you do are as close to sentient as they can (3PO, R2, etc). Who can forget the whole droid torture scene?

 

Not sure if alpha meant what it sounded like he said Alex, because it sorta contradicts his complaint, but i agree with the main complaint. If Battledroids in the PT are supposed to be lifeless lightsaber fodder, why give them squeaky voices and senses of humor and feelings of frustration in ROTS? It's worse in the clone wars, with droids yelling 'why meeee?!' ploayed for laughs. Sure, in a black comedy situation, but i don't like to think of the main Star Wars universe as black comedy. If battledroids can actually feel fear, they're just as tragic as Clones, if not moreso because they get literally no respect.

There's a comic (one of the clone wars short story ones) where a battledroid gets blasted in the head while marching, which disconnects him from the control-ship hivemind and give him sapience. He tries to desert, but a super battle -droid stops him. When that droid falls off a cliff and breaks, he gains sapience in his last moments because he's disconnected as well, since his battery is running dry. He says he's afraid to go offline, and the battle-droid tries to comfort him as he 'dies'. Eventually the still-running battle-droid runs out of power, but is found by farmers with the implication they'll power him back on and try to re-purpose him. Aside from being a sad tale on it's own, it raises a disturbing implication; do all battle-droids that are destroyed in non-instant matters gain enough sapience to comprehend their mortality just before it ends? That's insanely tragic.

 

Even if the droids were somehow semi sentient. They are made to serve whoever buys them, and most of them seem happy about doing that.

 

^ Because they're programmed to be happy slaves. Does that make it right? Or even more wrong?

 

I've often felt that Lucas wanted to have his cake and eat it too with the droids. Some of them function as real characters that the audience can relate to and fear for. But they're also used as comedic relief in circumstances that would certainly not be funny if humans (or aliens, as the case may be) were on the receiving end. Why would restraining bolts exist if droids were programmed to serve willingly? Surely they could be programmed to understand the concepts of ownership and being sold to new masters.

And if droids have no feelings, one wonders why Jabba lets EV-9D9 mess around torturing droids. Surely if his head mechanic droid set up in a corner of the hanger bay and spent hours upon hours punishing engine parts that displeased him, Jabba would have the droid reprogrammed. Presumably both the droid and the engine parts have better uses they could be put to. Same with EV-9D9 and her droids. Her continued existence only makes sense if Jabba likes the idea of his other droids being tortured, and that only makes sense if droids have emotions.

 

If a droid is sophisticated enough to achieve sapience—a sense of self-awareness—and acts with intelligence comparable to that of an average human-analogous being, then it should be granted rights equal to organic beings of equivalent cognitive capabilities. If a droid of said caliber is then being forced to perform tasks against its established will, then it is indeed a slave.

In plain Earth speak: if it thinks like a human, if it behaves like a human, and recognizes itself to be the equal of a human, then it should damn well be treated like a human.

 

There's also the issue of granting rights to beings with reduced cognitive abilities, without granting privileges.

Like, mentally disabled people having all the normal rights under law- but not permitted to sign legal contracts.

Or children, for that matter, or senile adults.

In Star Wars, there may be examples "semi-sentient" beings being given some legal protections to prevent them from being abused (I think Savrips might be one that the New Republic tried to protect).

I could see "lower-level" droids deserving the same treatment.

 

That's basically how the wealthy few tend to see the rest of us.

So, are the droids, slaves? Um, yeah, I'd say so.

The real question is...

What can they -- and we -- do about it?

Liberation, I feel, doesn't just come from without, but within.

 

Looking forward to the Oscar bait film: 12 Years a Droid

 

A droid is like your washing machine. Is a Tool. Now ask yourself. Is your Stove your slave?

 

In the absence of life, classifying any droid or computerized-machine as a slave is patently absurd. What's next? G'vmt regulations for the fair and ethical treatment of Windows-based PC's? Lord knows I've bashed more than one with a baseball bat, just for kicks.

Buckets of bolts and overweight globs of grease.

Jokes aside, Lucas should get more credit for how deeply fans care about "talking lawnmowers" every time we try to "humanize" one like its Pinocchio.

 

In my opinion, to qualify as a worker or a slave, you'll need to be a sentient being and conscious, not programmed to function and appear as such. It's artificial intelligence. However. If a droid was built in such a way that it would not just react to programming and upload experiences to change and adapt it to new situations like the droids in Star Wars do, but actually be self aware and have the ability to reason without a pre-programmed set of logic, then yes, they would be slaves if they worked without reward.

But droids in Star Wars get rewarded. They react to maintainance in much the same way as Humans experience pleasure. Charging up is like feeding and oil baths are like baths and going to the spa. And working and be rewarded with basic needs is salary. No need for credits if those needs are met. We work for money so we can buy food, clothing, have a place to live and if we have extra, we can buy something nice for ourselves. Droids have no need for bling, so if those needs are met, they definitely aren't slaves in any sense.

But like the poster above said -- they are tools built by organic meatbags to make their lives easier and perform complicated functions often beyond the capabilities of said organic meatbags. No organic can learn 6 million forms of communications. Droids can.

 

With the way I cook, I'm sure it certainly feels that way.

 

Humans "have no need for bling" too - nevertheless, we enjoy having it.

Slaves frequently got rewarded by their more generous masters (Roman gladiators, for example, after a spectacular win). Having rewards doesn't affect the basic state of a droid- which is- they are treated as property, can be bought and sold- and there is no legal penalty for an owner destroying one.

 

If my stove could care whether I liked what it produced, or felt pain if I kicked it...is it still just a stove?

 

Being programed to have a personality and feeling , and having real feeling and personality are 2 different things.

Robots are Programmed by someone to have those feelings, to instead of saying "my arm is malfunctioning, needs repair". To say something like, "my arms is in pain, need to check it".