Look, slavery is wrong. It's been hammered into my head since childhood and still is with those Hollywood movies and all. Slavery is bad, bad, not good, evil, horrid, cruel, malo, no es Bueno, etc.

The android isn't a human, no. But I still don't think it should be enslaved or smashed apart. No sane person is going to crush a cat or a dog because it's not human.

To be honest I thought more along the lines of basic human rights, like freedom of speech, going unharmed, making your own decisions, right to own stuff etc.

Nothing like those absurdities that get you sued because you didn't put a warning label on hot coffee....

All those laws SHOULD be extensions and clarifications of the former, but some are simply absurdities or invert the law because they were created to benefit somebody specific.

And yes, I firmly believe that they only exist to smoothen a lot of humans basically living on top of each other. It is such a hassle when you DO need to file a lawsuit, now imagine it if those rules were unwritten and you had to enforce them with a fistfight.

Regarding the "could benefit us" part - yes they definitely could.

So can quite a lot of animals, but they are still perched up and strictly under control. Even in those "bio-ecological" farms were they can "run free" it only means that the cage is bigger.

We think we should treat them well because they are still living beings and we know that they can experience pain and suffering, and our empathy drives us to avoid causing them such if possible (or most of us anyway).

But we still don't let the pigs decide that they don't want to be slaughtered, or the cows that they don't want to be milked and bred.

I'm pretty sure the pigs and chicken would prefer not to be slaughtered.

I wouldn't mind giving them a similar status, some laws that demand to treat them reasonably well (And if its only to avoid some nutjob "accidentally" cracking a real humans skull).

But let them run free and decide for themselves?

Nietzsche said we, HIS creations, killed god. I'd rather avoid the same fate.

Personally the way I see it is that if you own a toaster and have it make toast for you whenever you want then that's slavery and you're no different than Leonardo decaprio in django unchained.

haha, I feel like a terrible human being now. Would it be wrong of me to disconnect my toaster then? Or maybe I should stop making toast? Maybe I'll give it a nice soothing bath...

Well that's a reason for some to be vegetarians for example, isn't it? The belief that you have no right to impose such a definite thing as death upon other living beings (I dunno, I'm a meat-eater)?
Also, a pig or a cow can't perceive what's outside their cage. They cannot consciously decide not wanting to be slaughtered because reason a or b, weighing the pros and cons of remaining in their meadow/cage etc. They are not aware of them-selves, or what death entails. They are acting on instinct instead of reasoning.

And for that quote from Nietzsche: In that case, haven't you already lost then?
Putting androids (or any being of your creation with independent thought, for that matter) under control out of fear of them overthrowing you, isn't that already placing yourself in that position of to-be-martyr god?
Aren't you then already recognizing their potential to surpass a human, to leave them behind and discard them? Why would you have played God then and have created such a thing in the first place, if you knew what it entailed?
Better not have created it at all then. And even if you were to kill it upon realizing what you created and it's potential to supplant you, I would be more okay with that than slavery. Because that would mean that you acknowledged it as a being with agenda and capacity for individual thought and acting in its own interest, and its murder would have been out of fear for you and your species, rather then because you considered it faulty.

Am I making any sense at all?

You should free it and let it make its own decisions, for all you know it wanted to be a blender when it was on the assembly line.

The reason why sentient synthetic human android slavery is wrong is because we humans can't distinguish between synths and humans.

If something looks, feels, and acts human, then to some level we consider it human even if we consciously know it is artificial.

Enslaving a synth that you can't tell from a human is no different than enslaving a fellow human.

If you can accept that someone can own a sentient Synth that looks and acts human and they can do what ever they want to the Synth, then it is not too far to accepting someone treating another human the same.

The question I have is why are the Synths built to look and act so human that they desire their freedom?

Why give a Synths emotions when it will just help them get sympathy and lead to "programming errors"?

Why run the risk and give the Railroad a leg to stand on?

They have robots already.

A slightly smarter robot could do almost any thing a Synth could except creative work.

Codsworth is watching the young master and changing his diapers.

Getting a baby to stop crying takes some serious programming and processing power.

So why have Synths when robots could do it without being considered too human?

Do they need the Synths to do research so they need to be sentient?

Or does the process that creates the Synths not give them the option to dial it back?

Or is something else going on?

I'm going to be disappointed if this isn't even a thing in the game lol we spend weeks arguing over "what is life?" and "is it wrong to enslave sentient beings" and then the story is simply you have to save or avenge your husband and son with the android thing being something mentioned offhand but the most you ever experience is some partially completed androids that can't think for themselves and that you are forced to kill.

That would be very, very disappointing.
I agree with most that say it shouldn't be the main-plot, but I'd be so frustrated if it didn't at least have some bigger questline revolving around it.

Shape and biological composition don't define personhood. If it wishes to be free, it has the right to be free. This is all I have to say on this matter.

Historically this isn't entirely accurate. I don't speak Czech, so I'm not familiar with the word's contemporary meaning in this language, but it comes from Old Church Slavonic "rabu", slave. "Robota" used to mean servitude once. Even today in my language it has undertones of hard, thankless work - not just any work, although it can be used in this context too. "Robotnik" refers specifically to construction or factory workers doing physical jobs.

im sure that an accounting clerk an engineer or even a scientist would refer to his daily working as "robota" in your language.

They would. Very often it would be laced with the undertone I mentioned. I wasn't saying you were wrong, just pointing out that more subtle meanings of this word exist.

He does this a lot without really adding anything to the topic. I'm guessing he's a high school teacher.

slavic languages are really amazing even though the different slavic tribes have lived so far apart for such a long time having converted to different religions etc you still can somewhat understand eachother once youve learned russian for example. you dont have that with germanic but a bit with latin.

Put them in the body of a dog, then everybody will treat them like pets and helpers without worrying about treating them like fellow humans. Problem solved.

Or I edit wikipedia a lot. It's my way of saying what the other person is saying is unfounded unless they have something concrete to back it up. Also, high school teachers don't add [citation needed] to their stuff cuz high school kids don't generally do a lot of work that require academic sources.

You do realize this is an exchange of opinions?

I barely understand Russian. But I spent a few weeks in Slovakia once and I could communicate fairly well in Polish. Czech is a hit or miss because we have a massive number of false friends, leading to hilarious misunderstandings.

I kinda do have it a bit with German... I know Kashubian, which sounds like a bastard child of Polish and German. Or did you mean that Germanic languages aren't mutually understandable? Scandinavia would beg to differ.

i meant the differences between germanic languages such as swedish compared to german compared to english. they are very different you cant understand a word of swedish if you speak german. with latin langauges such as italian, spanish and french you get some words that have the same meaning at least.

I guess that's true. Then again, intelligibility between western and southern Slavic languages is rather low too.

Yes, and? I only use [citation needed] when people present something as a fact with no proof. Like the existence of the soul. Especially if they use this as the basis for why androids aren't equal. If they said "I am religious and believe in souls so in my opinion androids aren't equal but I also realize others might not share my view" I wouldn't have said anything at all.

Let me tell you something, Androids have no feelings, shoot them right in the eye and they won't even blink, they don't eat, feel thirsty or feel oppressed, the best thing for them is to keep making them work for humans and doing things for them such as making machines, fixing them and inventing things, since they're intelligent enough to know how to do these things, humans obviously invented and made them for a reason, and I'm quite certain that reason isn't "let them be free and live as humans".

So if the mainquest revolves around freeing "Syntyetic humans", then I'm sure as hell not going to enjoy it, especially if the canon ending is freeing them (from the people that made them, to work for them) and letting them run wild, from their inventors, they were obviously made by The Institute to work for them, not live alongside them as "synthetic human beings", and that's how it should remain.

I'd say that in a debate built on opinions, it's more often than not obvious that when someone posts something, they're giving their opinion.

Having to continually say "I think that," "I'd say that," "In my opinion," and other derivatives just bogs the posts down with unnecessary disclaimers and also invites the incredibly weak argument or "Well, that's your opinion," as if that much weren't already clear. It seems a better system is to have people declaring facts when they're actually declaring facts.

That's my opinion, anyway.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c

If your suggested system was universally accepted I would use less [citation needed]s.