daniL
Posts: 46
Joined: 4/12/2007 Status: offline
|
Fast Reply Even if the 'illegal activites' analogy is irritating, I will use it for the purpose of reiterating a point that was made [most recently by Archer, I believe] and posing a bit of a philosophical question/conundrum that this idea of responsibility causes. If a slave robs a bank, they are legally/criminally/morally responsible [don't comment on this separate from the following bits of this post because I am wording this like this purposely. The Master is at least morally responsible for giving the order. If the Master uses the money to pay for things-- because why else would they issue that order in the first place if they don't gain from it, right?-- They will eventually be held legally responsible as well. However, I would assume that the Master would order the slave not to implicate him [again, because that wouldn't be very clever of the Master now, would it.] Assume that this slave would follow this order If the society makes the slave do the time, go to jail, etc, but the Master does not have to take any punishment, how is the Master even capable of taking responsiblity for those actions. Even if the Master and slave refuse to acknowledge that the slave takes responsibility, the slave must in order to do various things, like get parole, or to argue certain defenses. Call it what you will, Merriam-Webster defines responsibility as 1. the quality or state of being responsible: as a) moral, legal or mental acountability b: reliability, trustworthiness 2. something for which one is responsible. If a slave must take/recieve punishment/reward for something, they are responsible. In addition, even if you compare bdsm slavery to historical forms of slavery, the slave did have to take responsiblity for their actions. If they misbehaved, it was not the Master who was punished. This was true in Rome, America, and any other country. A person is responsible insomuch as they can understand/comprehend their own actions.
|