Right, much better to just murder them. derp.

Uhhh, if your keeping them alive for nothing but a life of forced labor, and living by your whim, then yes, killing them is a better alternative. Merp.

So it's a mercy killing. I'll try to explain that to them as they beg for their lives...

If you are always going to use the strawman excuse of always the worse case scenario for slaves then you may be right in your opinion.

Considering that raiders routinely decorate their bases with mutilated and desecrated corpses of other people (many that I suspect begged for their lives if they were given the chance), I'm not exactly going to lose sleep about not honoring their requests.

Its not a strawman, you just defined the terms on which slavery would be ok to you and I just explained why thats nonsense. You arent sparing anyones life, you are taking them into a life of monotonous labor under your terms, a system in which you have absolute power over another human being, even if you treat them like royalty. A gilded cage is still a cage.

You have NO moral high ground here. Your little "beg for their lives bit" changes nothing. If you really gave one [censored] about morals you would let them go, instead of keeping them to work for you and pretending its right.

In principle I'd be all for pay evil unto evil/ironic punishment, but in practice it's a waste of resource if you enslave a slaver purely for the poetic justice. I voted gray area because it depends. Having slavery as the lawful punishment for slavery, you'll have to make up pointless work sooner or later. But if it's a karmic choice against an individual, like in Dishonored where you could disfigure the owner of slave mines and make him work in his own mines then it's a fitting punishment.

As for punishing other crimes with slavery, I'd only be fine with it if said crime(s) was really bad [censored], such as severe torture, repeated murder in cruel ways or [censored]. But like I said, in practice, if it's up to me I'd just kill them all.

They are repaying their debt.

They are not being tortured or starves, beaten or oppressed. They have their basic human rights of being fed and given shelter preserved and they have a set time that they will be released.

Now let's take the Legion, they work their slaves to their deaths either through back breaking work or until they are crucified for some arbitrary reason. They are fitted with bomb collars and abused and beaten. There are suggestions of [censored] and mutilation mentioned though not explicitly mentioned

There is a massive difference, don't be dense

As I said earlier, this "poll" gave no context other than "Is enslaving raiders wrong?"

It needs context. If you mean just random gathering of people, raiders or otherwise that have done you no wrong, for the sole purpose of enslaving them then I think almost everyone would agree that is wrong. If however, they raid your settlement, brahmin caravan, or harm someone in your presence, enslaving them for a period of time in my view is not wrong. If the term of enslavement is life, that gets iffy as it may just be better to execute them.

Keep in mind that what I am referring to is short term and does not involve using female slaves as six toys, beating them, or otherwise debasing them. They did a crime, they are repaying it, they are moving on. Also when they move on, they will be given clear instruction that there will be no second chance. Next time it is death.

Now, if the society of Fallout has moved to the point of establishing a penal system with courts, prisons and jails, then by all means they should be turned over for prosecution. My anology assumes there is no penal system in place.

Next time OP, give context for your question.

you know there are pleanty of slaves who have earned their freedom in history. if you belive that all slaves where treated like properity thank check your history alot of them where simply treated as workers. they got fed and had a safe place to sleep and live. look i dont belive in taking an inocent man and taking away hes rights. have yall never heard of prisions that make the inmates work? those inmates have no rights. why? because they gave up there rights by breaking the law

I'm for it as a narrative device, particularly in cases like Dishonored where the protagonist is doing it to people who have harmed him in an especially egregious manner. But I don't think that works in a real-life legal system. Corvo had no interest in justice. He was enacting revenge.

You can't make claims and then tell us to prove them for you.

As for prisoners, they still have rights. Prisoners in the United States are still protected under the Constitution. That's why they are protected from cruel and unusual punishment, why they can still appeal their case, and why they are still allowed to attend (in-prison) churches. They lose some freedoms and rights yes, but only during the duration of their sentence, and those freedoms and rights (with the possible exception of voting and bearing arms) are returned upon entering society again.

To be fair, we're talking about enslaving evil people, not random Mr. Howard/Mrs. Nora McNormal from 55th Normal Street who did nothing wrong. We're talking about evil people who've done a clear wrong being made into slaves as punishment for their deeds.

But to be clear, I'm anti-slavery all the way. Were I alive in the 1850s, I'd be one of those abolitionist people yapping all day about the evils of slavery in America and why it should be gotten rid of. Slavery is evil with a capital 'E'.

agin who has said anything about cruel punishment? im simply saying put them to work for there crimes you as the owner of the town decide for how long

You said that inmates have no rights. I was illustrating just a few of the various ways that idea is obviously wrong.

That's not the same as slavery. You're talking about chain-gang labor forces, which have been used for quite a while. That's what the Powder Gangers started out as.

Personally, I wouldn't advocate it. There's safety concerns about letting convicts out and about to perform community service, which is why they're typically performed out in less than populated areas (cleaning highways for example).

I don't see the wisdom in letting raiders walk around in your settlement, getting the lay of the land, learning its defenses, potentially sabotaging those defenses, and generally being in a place that would allow them to do harm to the citizens. Especially if you're unable to keep an eye on them. Then they can escape and cause all sorts of problems. Again, see the Powder Gangers.

let me try this from a diffrent direction.. the fallout universe is set so that everyone is divided lets say that each sttlment is a diffrent country. which it is. you have to watch out for your people. lets say you are attacked by raiders which in there on way are a group. they would be considered prisoners of war. yall are viewing it as if they are citzens of your base no. they are not. so you have an option to show no mercy and kill them which to me would be bad karma our making them come and "slave" for you. they well be fed and have a bed. but they well not have the same rights as my people. but i understand yalls point in todays time no i wouldnt inslave anyone

Consider it as hard labor for the crimes they committed.

Sounds kind of like a "Clockwork Orange" situation. On one hand, they might deserve it. On the other hand, you're sacrificing your humanity to a certain extent.

Yes, except for when it's both fitting and ironic, like what Slackjaw does to the Pendleton Brothers in Dishonored. Although in all fairness, in that case the victims were not only slave profiteers, but politically problematic sociopaths marked for assassination.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/german-pows-on-the-american-homefront-141009996/?no-ist

Geneva Convention said you weren't allowed to make pows work unless they got paid.

First of all, no I'm not.

Secondly, as many security concerns as I have with letting murderers wander about my town, they're nothing compared to the security concerns I'd have with ENEMY COMBATANTS from a nation actively at war with me doing the same. Can you imagine the insanity that would be letting Vulpes wander around your base for his punishment?

Furthermore, the actual rules and customs of war give the party being surrendered to free reign in deciding to accept a surrender from an enemy that just engaged in hostility. There should be no penalty in shooting a raider who was happily trying to kill me two seconds ago and is now asking for mercy because he ran out of ammo and I'm still kicking.

to kill someone who is unarmed and has surondered is considered wrong. and why would i let him wonder around like i said he well be working. more than likely with 1 or 2 guards watching him.

Yeah, because Vulpes is the kind of person who would be stopped by a whole two people.

But back to your first point. No it isn't. It's perfectly within the rules of war. If they are now surrendering because they failed to kill you, you are under no obligation to honor the surrender. What is wrong is trying to kill someone and then going "I quit so you can't hurt me now!" when you realize you failed. You can't surrender at the last second to avoid consequences.

The Outcasts mowing down Enclave soldiers who killed their CO and surrender to the Outcasts was wrong, because those soldiers had not just tried to engage them in combat seconds before, had made their intention to surrender quite clear from the get go and were not doing it at the last moment.

Also, they aren't unarmed. They merely used up their ammunition.

so its okay to kill an unarmed man but its not okay to put him to work as your slave? according to you by attacking he gives up all hes rights as a human and deserves to die

You keep throwing that "unarmed" word around as if that was actually the case, or as if it's a magical defense that shields you from repercussions (it isn't and it's not). If someone is attacking you, regardless of whether or not they have a weapon, they are a threat, and should be dealt with as one.

Killing an enemy is one thing. Causing them undue suffering is another.

It's wrong to saw an enemy's limbs off, cauterize the wound, and then leave them in the desert to starve/freeze/or get eaten by animals, because it causes suffering. That's also why certain bullets aren't allowed in war (Dum-Dums and the like) as they are intended to maim more than they're intended to kill.

And yes, a person who raids settlements, who burns, pillages, and murders those they comes across, does deserve to die. Frankly, I have a hard time even considering them to actually be human, as I think being human is more than form and species. It actually requires humanity.

As for if enemy soldiers deserve to die by virtue of being enemy soldiers and fighting you? No. But that's War.

And War never changes.

undue suffering? no. im putting them to work. you justify killing them by saying they have given up rights to live by attacking. i would of course feed them. they would be under armed guard all the time yegs. but maybe eventually gain there freedom back. i would be giving them a new chance at life while you would just kill them. i guess it comes down to point of view. you view my way as making them an animal i view your way as in humain to kill someone who is unarmed our defeated

It could be kind of poetic, enslaving those that would enslave and murder others.

To all those saying it is morally wrong, regardless.
Would you feel better if it was worded as incarceration, you know, prisoners "working the chain gang"?

This way, they are not merely a drain on resources. They have time to atone as well as set an example to other raiders.
Think about a fate that very well could be worse than death. Do you really want to get caught and assigned to a work camp, where there aint even any good bad Jet?