Saga Are Droids slaves?

There are several ethical issues in GFFA. I think it stems on whether you believe droids are 'alive' in SW or not whether they are slaves.

 

"Alive" is a common shorthand for "sapient".

As the Short Circuit movie puts it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Circuit_(1986_film)

"Number Five ... is ALIVE!"

 

I believe most of them are slaves. I don't think droids like R2 and 3PO are, but that's up for debate.

 

Given your rapacious argumentation -- or rote insistence -- elsewhere against the idea that Anakin in TPM and the clones in AOTC are ever depicted as slaves, I find that last remark of yours highly curious.

Anakin has a device implanted in his body, like all slaves, according to his mother, that is designed to explosively terminate his existence, should he attempt to escape. And the clones have been genetically altered, according to Lamu Su, to render them "less independent" than their original host.

Or is it, perversely, that you don't actually see Threepio and other droids as slaves? They're restrained, but so what?

Some of the comments within this thread are, well... interesting, to say the least.

 

I really like this question! I think it partly depends on the capability of the droid and partly on what the droid is programmed to expect.

Perhaps simple droids with only low level functioning are really still just machines that may or may not be able to talk. More advanced droids, perhaps the Federation battle droids of the 'Roger roger!' variety may have no knowledge of themseves at all when connected into the 'hive'mind' but may have a small amount of self consciousness when roaming disconnected (having some level of not wanting to die/stop functioning is a good piece of programming for battle droids so long as it is not stronger in the droid's decision matrix than following orders or killing the enemy (as defined through orders) because it will help them preserve themselves for future use). I think it would be possible for a droid to have this without being properly aware and sentient. Because neither of these types of droid are fully sentient I don't think they can ever be regarded as being slaves any more than my washing machine, or my vacuum cleaner.

However, really advanced, heavily upgraded, droids like R2-D2, C3PO (and I-5YQ) I feel have sentience and do have sufficient sense of self to perhaps be made into slaves in certain circumstances. I don't feel that R2D2 was a slave, he was a friend. I feel the same about C3PO, albeit a slightly more annoying friend at times, but a very willing one.

It is a tricky area though because one test of such a friendship would be that, if the droid 'wanted to' he could leave / disobey orders / take the day off and go to the droid cinema. The thing is though, droids are not made that way, they 'want' to serve. They are built to serve, their electronic brains function that way. So, given that droids are made like that is slavery really possible even for a sentient droid? I would say, only if the droid was programmed to expect to be free and 'want' to be free and was self-aware enough, sentient enough to know that it wasn't.

My reasons for this are that for a human, or other sentient life form if we are in-universe, slavery might be defined as having all choices about your life taken by another for their own reasons and not necessarily in your best interests, in fact those choices could lead to your own suffering or even death and you would have no control over that. However if droids are built to expect to be controlled and to serve others, then, even if they are sentient, such an existance is normal, good and comfortable for them. They cannot be said to be slaves. If, however, a droid's programming required it to have control over itself and this was denied and it was self-aware enough to be sentient then I think it could be held in slavery.

All of that said I do think droids of many capacities can be mistreated and can be forced to suffer at their own level of the self awareness ( low self-awareness = low capacity for suffering, high self-awareness = high capacity for suffering). Mistreatment might be forcing a droid to fail at something it is programmed to 'want' to complete, or forcing it to try to do two mutually opposing (and therefore impossible) things, or even forcing it to face it's own destruction over and over again if it is programmed to avoid such destruction. I certainly think that droids, especially high-funcitoning droids, can be made 'unhappy' or stressed.

In a way I really understand the droid point of view in my own self because, like them, I am personally really happy to be getting on with something I've been told to do. I find it relaxing and natural to serve and follow instructions. The times when I get stressed are when I am unable to do that due to illness, inconsistent directions or lack of ability. Perhaps I'm really a droid!

 

Rapacious? Truly? Are my arguments covetous? Grasping? I'm not sure what you mean. Nor am I sure I follow you with rote....you think I have simply learned unthinkingly to argue these points?

But...good of you to set out your 'argument' with such obvious and transparent polemic and not pretend it is an actual discussion of any point actually being made. Very decent of you.

But, for clarity's sake. Clearly Anakin is depicted as being a slave - in as much as there is little doubt Lucas wished the viewer to perceive that Anakin was a slave. Any question I raised regarding the depiction was in terms of that depiction's...realism? It is as realistic a depiction of slavery as the Flinstone's is a realistic depiction of stone age life, imo.His 'mom' calls him in from playing out, he owns things - including a droid and a ...podracer....without his owner knowing??! But (as you know full well) that's a completely different discussion from what we are having here.....

Let's move on to the clones in AOTC. You say here depicted...a very clever use of words I think. What is meant by depiction? Clearly when I learn of a huge army of sentient beings being bred specifically for a purpose, and even genetically altered to make them more suitable for that role, with their individuality stifled by both those alterations and (presumably) their training then I see slavery. In terms of whether they are depicted that way, you surely understand the question is whether that depiction is in any way addressed within the movies. Is it intended?

What I found glaring about the latter half of AOTC and the whole of ROTS was the lack of any hint of a mention of the status of the clones themselves. That not one character ever addresses that they might be slaves. So the question isn't really whether they were depicted (which can be argued in terms of perception) as slaves, but rather whether that was an aspect of the clone army that Lucas intended, that Lucas is addressing. But...I think you know that.

Lucas' own silence on the matter (along with every character in the movies) in either interviews or commentary - as opposed to his near verbosity with regards to even the most obvious refrains within the movies leads me to believe it wasn't an intentional aspect of Lucas' storytelling.

Which leads us to this place, right here. Is it that, perversely I don't see them as slaves? I don't know about perversely, but......have you read what I have had to say? To me, and to others, the fact that the droids are capable of independent thought and action (such that they require restraining bolts), that they demonstrate emotional response (fear, disgust, happiness) and that we are even supposed to believe in at least two them as characters suggests that ownership of them is slavery. They are conscious and self-willed individuals.

The question is, then, is this depiction intended to be seen that way by Lucas? Is that an aspect of Lucas' story, as in is it deliberately introduced by him as an element of contemplation?

 

Your manner suggests, quite often, less an argument, to me, and more an ignorant attempt at pedagogy.

But then, the same could be said for many here, including me, a lot of the time.

I didn't claim to be making an argument. Different modes of rhetoric are employed here on a constant basis.

It's just, when people do claim to be making arguments, they seem to assume they have the moral high-ground by default. It amuses me.

Which illustrates, to me, that you are applying one standard to the OT, and another to the PT.

Threepio pricks at your awareness and sympathy and you adduce his restraining bolt to argue that this makes him a slave of sorts.

But when the idea of Anakin having a "master" and a transmitter in his body that dissuades him from running away are introduced in TPM, furthering the motif of characters being held back against their will and not free to follow their own destinies (and Anakin, incidentally, is Threepio's maker), you snort at it, claiming the film only "notionally" depicts slavery.

Compared to Threepio, Anakin needs to eat and sleep, has a blood system and is vulnerable to infection, and has the capacity to suffer the same or greater levels of pain -- physically and psychologically. In other words, Anakin is at least as mortal as Threepio; and just as controlled. Yet only Threepio's slavery has any salience to you. I find the disparity in your attitude interesting, 'tis all.

Science-fiction and fantasy films, by their inherently visionary, abstract, and often-times chimerical nature, tend to be both visually and thematically dense, and rarely work to make all of their narrative concerns literal. They're not information kiosks, basically. Yet that is how you appear to be treating them.

A good film shouldn't do all the lifting for a viewer. Good films let the viewer draw their own thoughts and arrive at their own conclusions; or simply allow the viewer's mind to keep whirring long after the fact.

Would you also complain about the likes of "2001" and "Blade Runner" and excoriate Stanley Kubrick and Ridley Scott for packing such visual richness into their films and explaining almost nothing through dialogue alone?

A good film is a meditation on a matrix of themes. Lucas himself has said on more than one occasion that the Star Wars films are "silent films" and that he lets the visuals do most of the talking.

Why, then, is the depiction of slavery in the prequel trilogy such a gaping problem for you; which, based on your recent post, it most certainly would seem to be? Personally, I think it's very interesting that you seem to want characters' moral concerns to match your own; and if they don't verbalize them, those themes can't be there.

The visuals in the cloning section of AOTC are very clear, to me, at depicting slavery en masse. The design of the Kamino training facility screams soulless conformity, from the bodies in jars, to the Boba-clones all with their headsets on, sat obediently at long rows of computer banks, to the adolescent/young-adult clones all dressed the same and eating at the same time in a large cafeteria, to the utilitarian armour donned by the fully-grown Jango-clones, to the final visual (it is all a kind of visual and musical progression -- the final glimpse of the clones being a sort of coda or denouement) of fully-suited clones serried in battle formation blocks, and marching up non-descript landing ramps.

The dialogue, too, for what it's worth, clearly plays on the idea that the Kaminoans, who embody the rational-minded intellect of the other characters, lacking emotional sensitivity (and hence: moral structure), see nothing wrong in what they're engaged in, even taken to boasting about their work, as if the enslaved humans they're making a pretty profit from are a point of personal pride for them. "Clones can think creatively. You will find that they are immensely superior to droids." You don't see any irony in that dialogue whatsoever? To me, it echoes a Nazi officer swollen with pride over a concentration camp, perhaps giving an S.S. officer a lavish tour as thousands around them toil, suffer, and expire. When you see other people as less than human, it is that much easier to rationalize any action that can be conceivably taken against them, either for personal gain or because you yourself are in some sense coerced.

Coercion and manipulation form a central part of AOTC's plotline. Consider the moment that Padme falls out of the gunship. It is a clear rhyme, of sorts, with Palpatine and Mas Amedda manipulating Jar Jar by guilt-tripping him into opening the motion for emergency powers. Simply, where they are calm, Obi-Wan is angry, even manic. He asks Anakin to consider what Padme would do in his position ("If only Senator Amidala were here..."), cognizant of the sort of answer he expects Anakin to offer back, after threatening him with expulsion wasn't sufficient to sway him. Symbolically, the ship that Anakin and Obi-Wan are travelling to the hangar in explodes seconds after they jump out of it. And unsurprisingly, Anakin rushes straight at Dooku, determined to bring the encounter to a swift end; and instantly failing in that regard.

AOTC is a much darker and more sophisticated film than you're implying -- or is, at the very least, designed to not render every important idea up-front in its dialogue. What's more, despite you asking, in as many words, "where is the dialogue that keys me in?", there is some dialogue in the prequels that hints at the characters being uneasy with the clones, and aware that both slavery and militarism go against the higher ethos of the Republic; or their own ideals. Obi-Wan's line, "I have to admit that without the clones it would not have been a victory," Yoda's response, and an exchange of Padme's to Anakin in the next film -- "Have you ever considered that we may be on the wrong side?" -- all go some way to outlining a sense of weariness that the characters seem to dare to only go so far in articulating (Anakin, after all, harshly bats away Padme's concerns, shutting that discussion down before it has begun; and Anakin is heading down a dark path...).

While more esoteric, Lucas also exploits double-meanings in words. When Obi-Wan says "without the clones", he might as well be referring to the younglings, and by extension, the entire Jedi Order. In other words, without legally-sanctioned slavery (despite alleged "anti-slavery" laws), the Republic itself could not exist. AOTC is not kind to its characters. It is the Star Wars equivalent of "paranoid fiction" and continually shows them to be cut-off, cold, adrift, and estranged from their own hubris. Lucas' clear choice to situate the Jedi in a phallic temple, projecting from a ziggurat (the most famous ziggurat in sci-fi/fantasy cinema is probably the headquarters of the Tyrell Corporation in "Blade Runner"), is powerfully symbolic of the Jedi's haughtiness, and their millennia-long disconnection from the world at large. Something that becomes highly pertinent in AOTC's "library" scene with Jocasta Nu. "If an item does not appear in our records, it does not exist!" If Lucas doesn't depict slavery the way you think it ought to be shown, it isn't actually slavery, right?

In all this, it pays to be aware of Lucas' other films; and the director's own statements about his work, the film industry, and society and life generally. Art doesn't happen in a vacuum. And films have meanings beyond their surface. If you think Star Wars offers a simplistic morality, or a mono-planar storyline, be my guest. I don't think you're remotely doing justice to the films, but whatever. I will dispense with any further discussion of this matter in this thread. Not really the right thread. (Well, actually, it kind of *is* the right thread, but I expect a moderator to state otherwise).

 

My manner suggests? What do you know of my manner? Perhaps you would do best to take note of the words, how they are structured into sentences (sometimes not as succesfully as at others, admittedly) and then you would see the argument made, and address that - rather than some imagined....manner. Then you may avoid such accusatory, confrontational terms as "rapacious", "rote" and "ignorant".

By use of those terms you set the tone for your response, which then seems dependent upon an emotional concern to put down any point I may be making, rather than addressing them. In other words, there comes a point where I can only wonder at the intrinsic value of your own response, as whatever you write after this must be seen in the context of a) dismissal ("ignorant" "rote") and b) defensiveness ("rapacious")

Hmm...let's keep an eye out for this shall we?

I "snort at it"? No use of the moral highground here, no? Here we have you exorting me to comprehend that Anakin needs to eat, sleep..... an emotional demand that I must take his enslavement as a bad thing. Here you make the very same moral stance you have such concern about. Skipping briefly over the fact that Anakin and his life are entirely fictional my point was, actually, in what way has Anakin's life as a slave really impacted upon him as a nine year old boy? How is his life different from any other 'all-American' nine year old boy? He still gets to play out with his friends, his 'mom' calls him in for tea, he owns things, his family life is stable. My argument there was that that is not a depiction of slavery. There is no sense of the humiliation or dehumanisation - the familial, emotional dis-junction for example - that are the actual realities of slavery. It is, rather, the idea of Anakin-as-slave for the purpose of the story, rather than a depiction of slavery.

As I recall, the arguments made against that idea were on the basis that all slavery is bad and it is wrong to dismiss Anakin's slavery on the basis of it not being as violent or disjointed or...whatever as other slavery, that slavery was in and of itself a wrong; In other words, the moral highground by default.

But there, as here perhaps, my point is being muddied by some conception that I am making a moral point against Lucas. I am not here, nor was I there. In terms of Anakin's slavery I simply responded to the idea that Anakin being a slave was a depiction of slavery. I didn't, and don't, think it is. That's not making a moral point against Lucas or Star Wars.

Uh-hu.

Have you actually read anything I have had to say on this?

The issue of whether Lucas intended his story to address the slavery of the clones is one thing. Let's break it down. Do the relevant movies address the issue of slavery? Well...not one character ever says a damn word about that aspect of the clone army. In neither commentary or interviews has Lucas had a single thing to say about that aspect of the clone army. Given that Lucas is usually pretty forthcoming in terms of elucidating what he is trying to get across within those three domains (dialogue, commentary, interview) I'm not convinced that he is addressing that issue in the movies.

Just to note, that isn't a moral judgement on Lucas' storytelling, simply an observation that this issue is not an aspect, directly, of the story.

But, ok, let's take on board that Lucas is using the visuals as a cue to the viewer to engage their real-world moral proclivities - an argument I have already accepted in my posts, btw.

My argument, then, is to follow that through. And if you follow that through, if you look at the evidence of the films, then the Jedi, firstly, aren't responsible for the use of the clones. They do not have the power to decide that. So, ok, then the argument is made that they should still have not lead the army... my argument is, taking into account real-life ethical situation (using what Traviss called her "journalist brain") what options, realistically, do the Jedi have?

Here's where it gets interesting.

"Lucas' clear choice to situate the Jedi in a phallic temple, projecting from a ziggurat (the most famous ziggurat in sci-fi/fantasy cinema is probably the headquarters of the Tyrell Corporation in "Blade Runner"), is powerfully symbolic of the Jedi's haughtiness, and their millennia-long disconnection from the world at large."

So...the Jedi's problem is that they are cut off from the real world....but strangely what they should have done, in order to not 'dirty' their hands is....walk away from the conflict. Disengage from the Republic....

...which is about to be attacked by a huge droid army put together by a cabal of corporate and industrial interests...lead by what the Jedi will soon learn is a Sith Lord.

So, the Jedi, despite not having the political power to halt either the war or the use of the clone army are responsible...on the basis of the moral highground by default.....the conceit of real-world situational ethical argument is abruptly dropped for it can no longer sustain the 'argument' that the Jedi are to blame.

But I have made these arguments on the appropriate thread...I really don't know why you didn't address this there.

Just to say;

"If Lucas doesn't depict slavery the way you think it ought to be shown, it isn't actually slavery, right?"


...misrepresents the point I was actually making but...well, if it makes you feel, I dunno, morally superior or something, go with it...

Might I suggest that you have brought this up here because....you know the droids as slaves, despite it being a motif seen by viewers, is not something that Lucas intended for the stories to address? Is there a hint of ...defensiveness here? Hence the emotional, accusative pre-ambles?

 

Both of you - stop making snide remarks about each other and focus upon the topic itself.

 

We were having a somewhat sarcy, gentleman's disagreement.

What? Did you think it was going to escalate to duelling on a lava planet?

 

Maybe, maybe not. Either way, address the post, not the poster. You've been around here long enough to know the rules.

 

Although those rules are often misapplied and sometimes not followed.

Yes, I know the score. I always aim to provoke spirited discussion.

Look how long my follow-on post to only one kenobi was. Pretty big.

Not sure why some are keen to see calumny in posters that can and do behave and that try and lend themselves to good conversation.

 

About what I said about real life's robots: Sorry, I can't accept that argument. You don't create something so perfect and complex as an almost perfect simulation of a human personality by accident. That would be like throwing a fistfull of cards to the air and they accidentally forming a castle of cards when they fall. Or sitting on a box of watercolors and accidentally painting a perfect duplicate of the Mona Lisa with your butt.

In comics and movies a lightning can strike a toaster and make it sentient, but in real life that just doesn't happen. If people ever create an artificial being that perfectly simulates human emotions, that will be intentional. People didn't create planes, computers or nuclear plants by accident.

About the Star Wars Universe: I said that, opposite to what you would logically expect, they don't seem able to create droids without giving them human-like emotions. It's stupid, but it's the way it is. Maybe they have some magical gadget that can copy human minds and download it into computers, and that's how they created AIs in first place.

 

Even if they did accidentally create anything resembling sentient AI, they'd just destroy it and start again, because that's not what they're looking for in most if not all of these droids.

 

They have about as much sentience as regular aliens and probably more than some (ewoks). In every way that counts they are slaves, except that they have no connection to the Force, because they aren't living creatures. No the EU has species like this, that are still not considered slaves : Vong, so It still seems like a giant pitfall in morality in those terms. The only way that I can think about it and be at peace is by considering them the equivalent of pets, which is what I think they are meant to represent. Sentient species, subordinated, entitled to some care, but unable to take care of themselves? This brings up interesting points of what exactly is it that makes keeping pets moral, but I digress. Anyways those are my thoughts on the matter.

 

That was one...debatable comment. A civilisation's set of social norms being funny to other civilisations does not hint lower overall intelligence to begin with.

 

I do not think so. Droids are built to serve a variety of needs that might be dangerous or tedious to living beings. Butler, mechanic, diplomat etc.

I do like that over time, some develop personalities and loyalty.

 

it completely depends on if you think the droids are self aware like us or a lesser form of a.i.

what is life? that is the question.

i obviously don't believe a roomba is alive. what about chappie though?

Chappie (2015) - IMDb

this is a much different argument.

 

What Measure Is A Non-Human, indeed:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WhatMeasureIsANonHuman

Alternatively, Do Androids Dream?

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DoAndroidsDream

 

I have searched the Wookieepedia, and it seems that, in-universe, a guy working for the Baobab merchantile family is responsible for the accidental creation of the human-like droid personalities. Yperio Baobab created and sold a new droid-to-droid language that was inserted in all the operative system at that time, but one of his employees (maybe Yperio himself) included a virus that made the droid develope human-like personalities.

The virus spread and crippled nearly all droids in the Galaxy. Droids were wiped clean, but so long as some droid remain infected, the virus comes back again and again, so the engineers eventually surrendered and built their personality matrixes on the assumption that they would gain emotions and human-like sentience, advising people to wipe them regularity to avoid the most dangerous effects.

So, if you could put your hands on a personality matrix from before 200 BBY and make the droid unable to communicate in Bab-prime or Bab-neo, it shouldn't have to develope a human-like personality.

 

That's rather odd, seeing as there's plenty of "human-like" droids in the far distant past. Admittedly they're more like psychopathic humans (HK-47 springs to mind).

 

Maybe those droids from the past were all just imitations of human behaviour rather than true simulations of human personality. HK-47 was created by a Sith Lord, so he probably wanted him to have a murderous, psychopatic personality.

 

There was also the Great Droid Revolution, by a predecessor of his:

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/HK-01

 

Even if HK-01 had been created by accident, the schematics should have destroyed him instead of using them to build more HK assassin droids. Why would they keep building them?

 

Possibly because they saw his (almost) success as proof of a great achievement - so, as long as they didn't have "would-be rebel leaders" - that level of intelligence was something to maintain.

That corporation was in the "war and assassination" business after all.