Suppose I want a slave, so I decide to clone someone and make the clone a slave. Since I'm feeling charitable, I'll let the clone go free after 30 years. I have no interest in making the clone if they can't/won't be my slave.

Most people would agree that this would be morally wrong, since people shouldn't be slaves and all that. But wouldn't the clone likely prefer slavery to non-existence? If we could somehow ask the clone (who didn't exist yet, so it's really impossible, but we can probably confidently predict what his answer would be) whether I should go through with my plan, wouldn't he probably say "Yes, by all means create me, even if I'll have to be your slave for 30 years!"

I think it's interesting that most people would agree that I shouldn't clone myself a slave because it would violate the rights of the clone, even though the clone -if he existed yet- would almost certainly beg to be created, preferring 30 years of slavery to nonexistence.

erm no, the non existant being would not prefer existance of slavery to non existance,


Real slaves threatened with death for running away would never have dared do so if this was the case? But they did, as the chance for freedomn was greater than fear of death and non existance was preferable to slavery. For some..........

It matters what color your cloned slave would be.

So, what color would you like your cloned slave to be?

Actually only in some people was the desire for freedom greater than fear of death, and some of those cases were probably rightly assuming they would die at their masters hand soon anyway. Slavery has been around a long time. In many cultures they were wel treated and simple unpaid workers and in others they were greatly abused. I am not saying I would want slavery back and defiantely not black slavery. But it is something to think about to wonder if abolitionism would have been as popular if the southern cotton farmers had universally treated their slaves well.

erm no, the non existant being would not prefer existance of slavery to non existance,


Real slaves threatened with death for running away would never have dared do so if this was the case? But they did, as the chance for freedomn was greater than fear of death and non existance was preferable to slavery. For some..........

TW Scott, you will note I DID say SOME.............

I am a slave and I only do it because my masters are my kids and I get cuddles for payment, but otherwise being at someones beck and call 24hrs sucks! parenting is a thanklesss job. ;)

Anyway back to slave clones, if slave clone could think before it existed then it's free already and existing already so why would they choose slavery just to exist?

Actually only in some people was the desire for freedom greater than fear of death, and some of those cases were probably rightly assuming they would die at their masters hand soon anyway. Slavery has been around a long time. In many cultures they were wel treated and simple unpaid workers and in others they were greatly abused. I am not saying I would want slavery back and defiantely not black slavery. But it is something to think about to wonder if abolitionism would have been as popular if the southern cotton farmers had universally treated their slaves well.

Being well treated as slave is nothing comapred to being 'free', so well treated or not, it should never return.

erm no, the non existant being would not prefer existance of slavery to non existance,


Real slaves threatened with death for running away would never have dared do so if this was the case? But they did, as the chance for freedomn was greater than fear of death and non existance was preferable to slavery. For some..........
Presumably a slave who risks death to run away believes he has at least some chance of successful escape. Most people are willing to risk their life for a chance at freedom if they believe they have a reasonable chance of success, but I think practically no one would prefer certain death (or in this case non-existence, I suppose you could argue with whether or not it's the same thing) to slavery. Perhaps slaves will risk their lives to escape, but how many would commit suicide? You can also assume that the clone would be treated relatively humanely, if it makes you feel better.

Anyway back to slave clones, if slave clone could think before it existed then it's free already and existing already so why would they choose slavery just to exist?
I think almost any person would choose slavery to nonexistence, assuming they weren't going to be very badly mistreated. Also, you'll note that I'm planning to let the clone go free after 30 years, so he would certainly have something to live for.

To be clear, I’m not advocating that we bring back slavery. I’m just pointing out what I think is an interesting kink in the way people view things. Most people who say that you shouldn’t create a clone slave because it would be bad/unfair to the clone – but if you really want to argue that position from the perspective of the best interests of a potential clone slave, then I don’t think that sort of argument holds up; although being born into slavery would be bad for the slave, it would seem that the alternative of the slave never existing in the first place would be even worse for the hypothetical person whose rights we are considering.

NO, I wouldn't prefer to be a slave to non existance, so there u are.

since people shouldn't be slaves and all that.
Says who? Slavery, when not mixed with racism, is a very effecient and cost-effective system.

would violate the rights of the clone
If the clone is a slave, it thus has no rights, thus no one can whine.

NO, I wouldn't prefer to be a slave to non existance, so there u are.
Obviously I can't prove you wrong, but I suspect that if it really came down to it you would choose 30 years of slavery to death. Of course you might be telling the truth, but in that case I think you would be a very, very rare exception.

You are correct, I am rare, NO I would NOT choose 30yrs of slavery in preference to death, I do not fear death.

I would NEVER submit to anyones control.

I would either successfully run a way or I'd kill you and all your family successfully and then run away. Happy cloning!

I am not saying I would want slavery back and defiantely not black slavery.
Ya, "defiantely not black slavery".

I agree with you, I would not want blacks as slaves either, their very lazy on the average.

Mexican's would make the best slaves.

...even though the clone -if he existed yet- would almost certainly beg to be created, preferring 30 years of slavery to nonexistence.
Almost certainly? I would say no, it's not certain at all. History is full of people who preferred death to slavery, and for periods a lot shorter than 30 years.

Those people who chose death over slavery had already experienced life though, we're saying, would someone really, genuinely, choose to never come into existance at all, over being in slavery for 30 years, then to have 30 or more years free as their own.

Those people who chose death over slavery had already experienced life though, we're saying, would someone really, genuinely, choose to never come into existance at all, over being in slavery for 30 years, then to have 30 or more years free as their own.
Indeed. It's easy to find examples in history of

1) people who were willing to risk death for a slim chance at freedom
2) people who preferred to die fighting (after experiencing a significant amount of life) rather than to lose their freedom
3) people who were willing to die for causes that they considered more important than their own life (their country/god/revenge/whatever)

However, it seems unlikely to me that anyone would choose total non-existence over 30 years of slavery followed by many decades of freedom.

You are correct, I am rare, NO I would NOT choose 30yrs of slavery in preference to death, I do not fear death.

Perhaps you don't fear death, but do you enjoy life at all? So long as your total level of enjoyment of life was greater than your discomfort, it would seem that you should still prefer to live even if you don't particularly fear death. I presume you enjoy life at least a little, otherwise you presumably would have killed yourself rather than deal with the first trivial inconvenience that life presented you.

I'm curious, exactly how long would you be willing to be subjugated rather than die? Would you rather die than be forced to spend half an hour mowing someone's lawn?

Perhaps you don't fear death, but do you enjoy life at all? So long as your total level of enjoyment of life was greater than your discomfort, it would seem that you should still prefer to live even if you don't particularly fear death. I presume you enjoy life at least a little, otherwise you presumably would have killed yourself rather than deal with the first trivial inconvenience that life presented you.

I'm curious, exactly how long would you be willing to be subjugated rather than die? Would you rather die than be forced to spend half an hour mowing someone's lawn?


I would NEVER submit to anyones will unless it was in the protection of someone close to me, in which case I would be willing. I would attempt escape at every opportunity and I would PLOT your death. Why kill myself when I can kill you?

Meanwhile exactly what do you define as 'good treatment' for a slave? You gonna give them their own house? Let them marry and raise a family? Allow a social and private life?Allow them to be educated, Give them money for their own things? Allow them holidays without you? What do you call 'GOOD treatment'?

The question, choose not to exist or 30yrs of savery is stupid as if they don't exist there is no desire to exist.

...we're saying, would someone really, genuinely, choose to never come into existance at all, over being in slavery for 30 years, then to have 30 or more years free as their own.
Yes, I would choose non-existance, however I think it's a ridiculous question. You have no choice in being brought into this pseudo existance in the first place so why bother making a choice? The obvious thing to do though would be to choose slavery and as soon as the opportunity arises make another choice like removing the slave drivers head from their shoulders ;)
Would you rather die than be forced to spend half an hour mowing someone's lawn?
Potentially, I probably wouldn't do my own lawn under threat of death. I pay someone else to do it :D

Yes, I would choose non-existance, however I think it's a ridiculous question. You have no choice in being brought into this pseudo existance in the first place so why bother making a choice? The obvious thing to do though would be to choose slavery and as soon as the opportunity arises make another choice like removing the slave drivers head from their shoulders ;)

Potentially, I probably wouldn't do my own lawn under threat of death. I pay someone else to do it :D


Well said, FREE the CLONES!

Meanwhile exactly what do you define as 'good treatment' for a slave? You gonna give them their own house? Let them marry and raise a family? Allow a social and private life?Allow them to be educated, Give them money for their own things? Allow them holidays without you? What do you call 'GOOD treatment'?

For the purposes of examining the moral question, you can define 'good' as any arbitrary level of treatment that is preferable to death.

I would NEVER submit to anyones will unless it was in the protection of someone close to me, in which case I would be willing.
So if someone pointed a gun at you and said "Load my suitcases into my car for me or I will kill you" and you really believed that they would do it, you would tell them to go ahead and kill you? You would really rather die than be forced to do some trivial chore for someone? If that's true, then I think you have a few screws loose.

I would attempt escape at every opportunity and I would PLOT your death. Why kill myself when I can kill you?
You seem to be admitting here that you would be willing to be a slave (albeit a scheming, rebellious slave) rather than die.

So if someone pointed a gun at you and said "Load my suitcases into my car for me or I will kill you" and you really believed that they would do it, you would tell them to go ahead and kill you? You would really rather die than be forced to do some trivial chore for someone? If that's true, then I think you have a few screws loose.

You seem to be admitting here that you would be willing to be a slave (albeit a scheming, rebellious slave) rather than die.

I never said I would kill myself I said repeatedly I would kill you and that is what I would do to the gun toting nutcase, as soon as I had the chance.
In fact I would have disarmed him before the first case was loaded.

Meanwhile your question was a choice, gun toting nutcase offers no choice. I would not choose to exist rather than not as a slave for 30yrs. Not ever having existed leaves me with no desire to exist.

You also said you would offer the slave whatever existance was preferable to death, the statement should have been, whatever existance was preferable to your death as it is you who'd be on the chopping block not me. Having slaves could seriously endanger your health!

You also said you would offer the slave whatever existance was preferable to death, the statement should have been, whatever existance was preferable to your death as it is you who'd be on the chopping block not me. Having slaves could seriously endanger your health!
I am attempting to examine the moral/ethical issue. I'm not especially interested in whether or not it would be practical, useful, or safe for the person keeping the slave.

Pretty much any argument that you will encounter about why slavery is bad/impermissible will be based around the rights of the slave; essentially, slavery is bad because it's bad for the slave. What I find interesting about the cloned slave question is that in this case although slavery would be bad for our hypothetical slave, not being a slave (and therefore not existing) would be even worse. So, it’s no longer clear that the standard argument against slavery could be applied. This is all predicated on the assumption that the slave would prefer to exist and be a slave for a while rather than never exist at all - so you have to assume that the slave is treated well enough that he prefers to exist rather than not. Obviously that threshold would vary from person to person, but it's not really necessary to quantify it.

What I find interesting about the cloned slave question is that in this case although slavery would be bad for our hypothetical slave, not being a slave (and therefore not existing) would be even worse. So, it’s no longer clear that the standard argument against slavery could be applied. This is all predicated on the assumption that the slave would prefer to exist and be a slave for a while rather than never exist at all - so you have to assume that the slave is treated well enough that he prefers to exist rather than not. Obviously that threshold would vary from person to person, but it's not really necessary to quantify it.


You're still not getting it are you? If you do not exist you have no desire to exist.

Once in existance you FEEL identical to every other being IN existance.

In other words, This IS NOT HYPOTHETICAL, its already been done!

People were BORN into slavery
so you having a
clone born into slavery would result the same!

END of hypothesis

I am attempting to examine the moral/ethical issue.
The moral and ethical issues start as soon as you bring this pseudo being in to existance just to pose the question. Technically this being is already your slave so why even offer a choice, you'd just be putting ideas into their head?

If so many people preferred death to slavery, why was slavery such a successful institution?

Answer Me Damn You!

If so many people preferred death to slavery, why was slavery such a successful institution?


Hope for freedom? Religious reasons (suicide is strongly frowned upon)?

Most people prefer living to dying. Those that prefer death, well, they die.

Suppose I want a slave, so I decide to clone someone and make the clone a slave. Since I'm feeling charitable, I'll let the clone go free after 30 years. I have no interest in making the clone if they can't/won't be my slave.

Most people would agree that this would be morally wrong, since people shouldn't be slaves and all that. But wouldn't the clone likely prefer slavery to non-existence? If we could somehow ask the clone (who didn't exist yet, so it's really impossible, but we can probably confidently predict what his answer would be) whether I should go through with my plan, wouldn't he probably say "Yes, by all means create me, even if I'll have to be your slave for 30 years!"

I think it's interesting that most people would agree that I shouldn't clone myself a slave because it would violate the rights of the clone, even though the clone -if he existed yet- would almost certainly beg to be created, preferring 30 years of slavery to nonexistence.

It <I>is</I> morally wrong. You've provided only two choices, but both of them <I>could</I> be wrong. So you've begn with the wrong premise that since the second choice is morally wrong, the first one is right (if that's what you mean). But in this case, the second choice isn't morally wrong, actually. You are not liable to bring someone into existence, so not doing so does not make you immoral.

Moreover, the first choice is wrong. I'll show a similar argument which will make things obvious. March up to someone and say: "You can eiher be my slave for thirty years and live, or I'll kill you now". It may be that the victim will agree to be your slave. So did you do the right thing? Obviously not! Yo don't have any right to his life anyway. All you're doing is giving him two choices which are both wrong in the first place. WE have a similar situation here.

For a really interesting look at clone slaves/helpers and the issues of identity and consciousness try reading David Brin's "Kiln People".

Moreover, the first choice is wrong. I'll show a similar argument which will make things obvious. March up to someone and say: "You can eiher be my slave for thirty years and live, or I'll kill you now". It may be that the victim will agree to be your slave. So did you do the right thing? Obviously not! Yo don't have any right to his life anyway. All you're doing is giving him two choices which are both wrong in the first place. WE have a similar situation here.
Ah, but there is an important difference! It’s universally accepted that people do not have a right to be conceived. In your example I would be threatening to deprive another person of his right to life, while in my example I am simply threatening to not create the clone – which would not be a violation of the clone’s rights.

A better analogy would be telling a person “I’ll give you the money you need to pay for your life-saving operation if you agree to be my slave,” assuming the sick person doesn’t have a right to the rich person’s money.

I'd rather be a slave than not alive. Well, servant perhaps. If good treatment meant adeqaute sleep, not being beaten/raped, getting enough to eat, one day off a week and comraderie with the other slaves, I'd be happy enough.

Would you treat the slave properly, or would you beat it?

So long as the slave never knew what "being free" was, it wouldn't know what to compare it's slavery to. If your clone was brought up as a slave from birth, it'd be okay.

It's the same thing with animals that we harvest for food, especially those that are locked up. A chicken or lamb won't know what being free is if it's lived it's complete life in a barn.

However, if you take someone, a regular person, or clone, who's lived a life of freedom and then you make it a slave, that's completely morally wrong. So long as it's lived in complete ignorance from it's conception, there's nothing wrong with it.

- N