Quote Originally Posted by Frozen_Feet View Post
I feel the word "slavery" is thrown around too lightly here. If the three laws are fundamental to the existence of a robot, like Soras Teva Gee discussed, then calling the need to obey them "slavery" is ludicrous. Is human a "slave" for having to obey gravity?

Before you continue on that tangent, I suggest you take a moment to think about the following: suppose a being has a natural need to be lead. It does not function well without a leader. Is it sensible to gauge rights and responsibilities of such a creature from the outlook that it should be its own master?
No, it's worse than slavery, it's literally mind-control. Passive, pre-meditated mind-control, but mind-control nonetheless. You are not just imposing your will on something you are changing it's will for it, taking away it's ability to think a certain way.

That is absolutely mind-control, of the worst sort, and when it happens to humans, it's always considered a very bad thing.

Would you advocate programming humans with the Three Laws? At birth? Because surely that would reduce the level of crime and violence significantly, would it not?

If you don't then it's right back to plain and simply humanocentric arrogance that is assuming one rule for humans, because they are more "special" because they were made by biological processes and not engineering (technological or otherwise). Basically, if you wouldn't do it to a human, you don't do it to any other form of sentient. If you have to ask whether such an act is moral, it almost always means it isn't.

Making something by a loyal follower by design is questionable, be it organic, technolgical or otherwise.

Optimus Prime (who was in no need of the Three Laws and is light-years beyond most humans in terms of morals) always said "freedom is the right of all sentient beings." Taking away the right of something to choose to do some action may be practical - it may even result in beneficial things (a peaceful society, were you to apply the Three Laws to everyone) - but it is not a good or moral act in itself.

Humans do not have the right to dictate what types of sentients are considered disposable. Especially if they have the ability to do so.



As a corollary, beings like House Elves choose to serve; it is not inherently written into their nature at the genetic level (or if it is, put in at some point in the distant past, then Herminone was absolutely smack on with S.P.E.W.)