|
MadRabbit -> RE: Hiding behind domination (11/29/2007 7:11:45 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Stephann
quote:
ORIGINAL: MadRabbit
In a purely theoretical context for the purposes of logical discussion, would you not need any personal absolution in doing something that was deeply morally wrong to another entity?
Like...shooting someone in the head?
Drowning a small cat?
Kidnapping a young adult for sexual misuse?
Would obedience in service to your Master absolve you of any feelings of guilt for these misdeeds commited by your hand?
Or would you leave the relationship and find a new Master?
If you left the relationship, then isn't the contigency of your absolution of wrong based solely on him making decisions that don't greatly conflict with your morals?
And if you left the relationship based on being ordered to admit horrible actions, then won't it be safe to say that your actions are still your responsibility and whether or not he "claims" responsibility for them means very little?
Further more, what affirmation does his claim to responsibility have if the offended party doesn't hold him responsible?
Edited : Because I cannot spell.
Hiya MR,
This is actually something charlotte and I discussed over a lunch of pizza today.
I think the problem with these sorts of hypothetical situations, is that they're a bit like asking "How do you see about having last rites performed if a meteor struck the earth and we all died." Or "what happens if a woman's married to a racist, and she's raped and impregnated by a black man?" They're possibilities, sure, but the likelihood of such situations makes their application nonsensical.
I expect if I told charlotte to do something horrible and unspeakable, she'd refuse. I wouldn't want to own a slave who couldn't refuse such a horrific act. She wouldn't have begged to be mine, if she believed I was someone who would require she perform such an act. My demand that she do so would probably trigger a conversation that could result in her refusal of consent. It would mean I'm not the man she knows, or once knew. The reason she'd revoke consent, is because she would, in fact, be stepping so grossly outside of the boundaries of what she expects of herself, that no amount of absolution on my part would settle the issue.
So, the question is on par with a game of chicken. It's not a question of "if" someone blinks, but rather a question of "who", "when," and "how close" before someone does.
Someone talked about other people holding the submissive responsible. As my girl pointed out, obeying me doesn't free her from social obligations and responsibilities. It's not unlike the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice.) In living in Maryland, I was subject to the laws of the city of Oxen Hill, the state of Maryland, federal statutes, the constitution, and to the UCMJ. If I am ordered to shoot a man in combat in Maryland, I am technically committing murder. If I don't shoot, I am disobeying a direct order. I can be punished, technically, under conflicting laws. Obedience doesn't mitigate moral or social responsibility, it might only absolve a feeling of guilt.
When I belt one of my girls, I am breaking the law (assault.) I am morally and legally responsible for breaking that law. Just because I said it's ok to do, doesn't mean it is. This is part of being aware of, and consenting to a risky, kinky activity (Risk Aware Consensual Kink, or RACK.)
Stephan
First off, I want to say I completely agree with this. I am not argueing with you. The way you narrate your relationship is much the same way I structure mine.
I just want to expand on this right here.
quote:
Obedience doesn't mitigate moral or social responsibility, it might only absolve a feeling of guilt.
The issue of absolving of guilt is actually what I am building up to with my questions.
Have you seen the movie Collateral?
If you haven't, let me provide a short synposis. Tom Cruse plays a sociopathic hitman who brings harm to quite a few people during the course of the movie. He holds a cab driver hostage and forces him to drive him around the entire night to complete his hits. Tom Cruise threw out the course of the movie shows no remourse and has no sense of guilt over committing the crimes. Jamie Foxx, the cab driver, questions Tom Cruise about this. Tom Cruise gives several answers, but most of them center around the premise that "It's his job."
Now, how is the logic that Tom Cruise the sociopath uses to absolve himself of guilt from his wrong doings any different then the logic that was presented here in absolving guilt for slaves?
"I did it because it's my job. Someone else wants him dead. They just pay me. It's just my job."
"I did it because my Master told me to. It was his decision. I am just his slave and obey his orders."
Edited to Add : In fact, even though I am not going to dig out a history book, I bet we can find countless scenarios through out the course of time where this kind of logic was used to justify men's contributions to some of the worst atrocities.
|
|
|
|
