Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire discussion

I understand about it is not right to fight fire with fire, but she isn't trying to abolish slavery by killing/ensalving the owners or anything like that, she is merely trying to free them! Is she not so different from the people who helped free slaves from the south, by the underground railroad? And just beucase the slaves are brainwashed does not mean that they don't deserve freedom, I think that makes it even more pressing. You can't change the rules AND follow them. I know that sounds like I am advocating violence in the name of a beleif, I'm not. I am just merely saying that you have to think outside the box.

Oh my! everyone is so defensive! Fadhilah was the one who compared owning a slave as to owning a canary. No reason to get worked up! I am just merely enjoying an interesting debate. Sorry.

Oh, no, I get thinking outside the box. I agree with that. But there are many different boxes in this world, and just because you are outside one box does not mean you are not still in a box. :D (What a philosophical quote I have just made! :P ).

And I, too, am enjoying the interesting debate. I hope I didn't sound defensive. ;) I thought you came off strong, so I decided to respond in kind. I'm sorry if I misread your post. I would enjoy continuing our conversation, please. :)

As to fighting fire with fire. She isn't trying to abolish slavery by enslaving owners, she is trying to abolish slavery by enslaving elves. Or think of it this way: slavery is basically removing the choice of an individual regarding the direction his or her life takes. Generally it involves bad treatment and forced labor, but at the core, it is a lack of freedom or choice. Hermione is, essentially, giving the elves no choice in their own freedom: whether or not they want to serve the wizards. Thereby, she is doing to the elves the same thing those she is fighting against are doing. See what I mean?

As for political correctness, no way! That is just doing what the government/society has deemed morally acceptable at this time. Letting society decide what is morally acceptable instead of forcing society to do what is morally acceptable is not something I agree with at all.

actually....i don't really get what you mean....im only 12 years old people!

If someone is a slave you should labour under any means to give them the opportunity to be free and enjoy the same rights that we should all enjoy. What slave 'master' is going to want to allow freedom for their slave who works for them for free and is obliged to remain and be treated with disrespect and abuse.

In the narrower context of the book, Hermione wants to give all Elves the opportunity to be free. If they don't want to be then they don't have to pick up the little hats she leaves lying around. The only way to make change happen is to actively pursue the cause you believe in.

Cassondra wrote: "Oh, no, I get thinking outside the box. I agree with that. But there are many different boxes in this world, and just because you are outside one box does not mean you are not still in a box. :D (W..."

Very Philosophical!

No, I know she never tried anything of the sort, but I would not say that just beucase Hermione hid some socks and hats around that she was fighting with fire! Should you leave abused children in the care of their parents just beucase they say they want their mommy? And in many ways these elves are like children, they have no education, no will of their own. They are scared to be free merely because they are told its wrong to be free. Does that mean they would not want freedom? I once babysat for a little girl thought that Cops were scary bad guys. Why did she think this? Because she was trusting the judgement of those around her (her ignorant papents). I did a lot of explaining to her that cops were the good guys, they can help you if you are lost or hurt. It is very similar with these elves and freedom. They are told its bad, so they are terrified of it. They just need someone (hmmmm...maybe Hermione???) to change their minds. And yes, with that little girl, I would take her to meet cops and show her, "See isn't he just a really nice man?" Which is what Hermione was doing...curing their fear by exposure.

Except she wasn't merely "educating" the elves, she was hiding clothes around so they would accidentally pick them up and be freed. This is trickery. This is taking away their ability to choose freedom or not. Which is, again, a form of slavery.

However, I do not believe that the elves were necessarily uneducated. It is this idea that I take issue with. The idea that just because someone doesn't agree with you, they must be ignorant. If only they knew! Because just because something is obvious to you, me, or half of the world does not mean those who disagree are uneducated. I spent a lot of time at a university where professors seemed to think this all the time. "Oh, if only you KNEW" seemed to be their motto. Then they do their best to POUND that knowledge into our heads. Well, I knew what they were saying and understood completely their points of view, but I still did not agree. Though they thought I was uneducated, I was not. And giving me more "knowledge" was not going to change my mind. I take issue with two assumptions, then about the elves. 1) They are uneducated and "just don't know any better." 2) They would change their minds if they only knew. Winky, who was given freedom, did not change her mind after a while. And we are not told specifically what elves know about their situation. They might be scholars, for all we know!

Goblins are also persecuted in the wizarding world. No one talks about their ignorance because they are angry, fighting peoples who try to do something about it. It is as if society says that only the angry, upset beings really know what's going on. *eyeroll*

How do you feel about Voldy? He forgot when he took Kreacher to the cave. All because he forgot that house elves can do magic, people found out about the horcruxes. Grip hook admitted it. It's a wizard war. If you try to help them, they'll repay you. It just like Harry and wormtail, he saved Wormy and Wormy repaid him

Arti--I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, unless you're saying not to underestimate the powers of the other races. As for repayment, I'm not sure how that would be a good thing, either. Being nice just as a repayment isn't as cool as being nice to be nice.

spew is a weird name for an elf organization. when you first see this, imagine an elf spewing into a jar like one of those people in the wild west. you'll laugh too...

A comparable real-life incident:

McDonald's on Tuesday said that it would add apple slices and reduce the portion of French fries in its children's meal boxes this fall, effectively taking away consumers' current choice...

(Source:http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Lat...)

Choice=good as long as you are doing no harm to others in the process in most situations.

It is a book, so one it isn't a huge problem.
However, SPEW was a bit forceful how she was always shaking the collecting tin in people's faces and almost forcing them to join. And I just agree with Vc. No sense in repeating what someone already said.

Kristen wrote: "So, here's a question for those who think Hermione should have just minded her own business, WHY???
Ok, so the elves didn't mind being slaves who were completely at their master's mercy as far as h..."

That is a entirely different story altogether.

Crazy Uncle Ryan wrote: "Time for me to do a little rant. In this book Hermione organizes a group called S.P.E.W. (The Society for the Promotion of Elfish Welfare) in which she advocates that house elves ought to be free, ..."

Well, a glance through world history shows that many-a-times, the Oppressed has accepted his or her plight as his or her destiny. Their brains have been washed in such a way that they are made to believe that their current problems are a result of sins committed in the past (in cases, past lives) or some other social pretext and that it is their fate to suffer! I agree that its not right for an "outsider" to come and tell you what's right for you but in such cases you need that kinda stimulus to trigger a mutiny.

It's pretty obvious to me that Rowling thought Harry's approach was the more appropriate one: just treat Dobby and other house elves as he would want to be treated. As individuals. They don't need the paternalism that Hermione offered. That sort of thing is belittling and condescending. Harry let Dobby be what he wanted to be, without imposing his own expectation that he become like everyone else (which was the subtext of Hermione's SPEW). Harry freed Dobby, but understood that it was in his nature to serve. So Harry accepted Dobby's service--which the elf offered freely.

The house elf bit was actually one of the more subtle bits of social commentary in the book, finding a bit of middle ground without bashing everyone over the head with it. Harry just did what was right, without hemming and hawing or being preachy. Which was, I think, Rowling's point.

I say to give the elves enough freedom so that THEY can decide what they want to do. I mean, that girl elf working in the Hogwarts kitchen (sorry, forgot her name!) was miserable where she was. She hated being free! Though Dobby loved it. So, like people, elves need to be able to make the decision themselves.

Taken from http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/slavery/e...

Attempts to justify slavery
People defended slavery as natural or beneficial ©
Attempts to justify slavery

Virtually everyone agrees that slavery is inhumane and degrading and wrong, but since for much of history many people defended it, it's important to demonstrate why it's wrong.

Trying to justify slavery

A number of arguments have been put forward to try and justify slavery. None of them would find much favour today, but at various times in history many people found some of these arguments entirely reasonable.

It's natural that some people are slaves

This argument says that some people are slaves as part of the natural order of the universe, or as part of God's plan, and it is wrong to interfere with this by abolishing slavery - nobody nowadays regards slavery as a natural thing.

But if this argument was to be used then there would have to be some certain way of distinguishing natural slaves from those who should not be enslaved - without such a method injustice is sure to occur. No such test is possible, although past cultures thought there could be such tests.

Slaves are inferior beings

This argument says that even if slavery is cruel and degrading, slaves are not fully human and so their suffering is as ethically important or unimportant as the suffering of domestic animals and they do not have any rights that would justify the abolition of slavery.

Some people take the argument further and say that slaves are beings who are so inferior that they deserve to be enslaved.

This argument has often developed into racism to justify the enslavement of certain population groups - some of the defenders of the Atlantic slave trade argued that slavery was the proper place for people of African descent.

These arguments have been used in very recent times to justify enslaving particular racial groups.

This group of arguments is nowadays regarded as completely misguided.

Slavery is good for slaves

This argument teaches that slaves lack the ability to run their own lives and are therefore better-off and happier in a system where their lives are run by others.

Modern society is unenthusiastic about such 'paternalistic' arguments.

Slavery would be too difficult to abolish

This probably is the reason why some cultures chose to tolerate slavery while trying to eradicate many of the more cruel practices - but it is not a justification for slavery.

Slaves are essential to certain industries

A number of past industries have depended on slave labour, and the employers claimed that abolishing slavery would be economically disastrous.

This argument isn't an ethical one and isn't backed up by examples.

There is also a strong counter-argument that the use of slave labour can force non-slave workers and businesses that don't use slavery out of business or into serious hardship.

Slavery is acceptable in this culture

Slavery was generally accepted by the majority in some societies - if ethics is a matter of public opinion (Cultural Ethical Relativism) then some would say that slavery was ethically OK in those societies where it was the cultural norm.

This sort of argument is a key reason why many people oppose CER.

Slavery is a useful form of punishment

Some cultures have used enslavement as a punishment.

Even if this were an acceptable argument, it would only cover a tiny fraction of cases and would not justify slavery in general.

Slavery is legal

This is no argument at all - things can be legal and unethical at the same time.

Abolishing slavery would threaten the structure of society

This argument was popular at some periods - but it was perhaps an argument that a particular society was ethically flawed and needed reorganisation.

Since no modern society is based on slavery it has no application.

Living in slavery is better than starving to death

In circumstances of extreme poverty, living in slavery may be the least bad available option.

While slavery may be the least bad option for an individual, this doesn't justify slavery, but indicates that action should be taken to provide other better options to individuals.

Free men should be able to become slaves if they want to

It can be argued that this sort of slavery isn't real slavery until some form of coercion is involved.

Since it would only apply to a tiny proportion of cases of 'slavery' it is not a justification for slavery itself.

By and large people aren't concerned about the ethics of voluntary slavery; what concerns them is the situation where people are forced to become slaves, or where people who have chosen to be slaves are prevented from regaining their freedom.

We also need to be alert to cases where people are conditioned to find slavery acceptable, and where it can be argued that their choice is not a free one.

Finally, if free people choose to become slaves they may weaken the general prohibition against slavery, and this would be a bad thing.

Slavery is about humanity, not only does it degrade the humanity of the slave but the slave owner as well.

Molly wrote: "Natalie wrote: "You can't say that Elves "love being slaves". There is a name for that...its called its called Stocholms syndrome! They love to serve their masters beucase its a means of survival, ..."

By giving them freedom she was taking away their right to choose thats the funniest oxymoron I've read for a while. By giving them choices she was taking them away!
In the case of the Hogwart's elves would not Dumbledore have allowed them to continue as they were with pay and leave... like he did Dobby

omg I love hermoinoe, but seriously, the S.P.E.W GOT SO ANNOYING!!
But still I like how she tries..............
:)

omg I love hermoinoe, but seriously, the S.P.E.W GOT SO ANNOYING!!
But still I like how she tries..............
:)

Kristen wrote: "I don't think she was trying to tell them what was best for them. I think the point was they were entitled to rights, not to force them to take those things. I mean, people generally get vacation t..."

THIS!
Everyone else can go home.

Might be related:
Please remember the british parlament is divided into the 'House of Lords' and the 'House of Commons' whereas the House of Commons doesn't have much of a say in important matters ...
You might draw some paralells here.

Crazy Uncle Ryan wrote: "Time for me to do a little rant. In this book Hermione organizes a group called S.P.E.W. (The Society for the Promotion of Elfish Welfare) in which she advocates that house elves ought to be free, ..."

yeah.

We never find out if the elves are magicked to like being enslaved (re: Hermione is wrong), or if they are like humans with Stockholms who know nothing but slavery and are thus afraid of freedom (re: Hermione is right).

We DO know that many wizards treated their house-elves like crap from examples like that ministry official sneering at Winky and calling her "Elf!" in the beginning of book four. Also, that wizarding society is grotesquely racist.

We see Hermione become less abrasive when her tactics don't work, for whatever reason. She was wrong to be so gung-ho in Goblet, but as a child who knew no better, she followed her conscience. Then she grew up and followed her conscience plus reason/experience, in her work with the Ministry.

I don't find her annoying for making an error in method. I love her, for working until she found methods that helped for real.

-Elizabeth Reuter
Author, The Demon of Renaissance Drive

Hermione isn't forcing the house elves to join, she is just supporting them if they do want to be free.

S.P.E.W is the reason why Hermione is my favorite character in this series. Her tactics might be questionable but she is the only character who refuses to see slavery as ok b/c everyone thinks so including the slaves themselves (internalized oppression), and is actively working to abolish it.

The way I see it, Hermione feels like House-Elves have been brainwashed into thinking that they should accept the treatment that they do and that they should willingly serve their masters, whoever they are and whatever they want them to do. She does have some good points in making that they should want to be free and to stand up for themselves when they aren't being treated they way they should be, but at the same time, I think she goes a little too far with Winky by upsetting her so much. Dumbledore definitely handled it well by allowing Winky to witness Barty Crouch Jr. while under Veritiserum. Also, I feel like Hermione tones down on her efforts by the end, which is how it should have been in the beginning. I think she was just trying to push these efforts too hard in the beginning and scared all the House-Elves into not wanting to listen.

Xdyj wrote: "S.P.E.W is the reason why Hermione is my favorite character in this series. Her tactics might be questionable but she is the only character who refuses to see slavery as ok b/c everyone thinks so i..."

Nicely said, it's frustrating how many on this thread seem to accept that slavery is OK if the slave is "happy" with it.

hmmmm....
i never really thought of it that way. now if i look at it from that angle, i have to say i sgree

Elizabeth wrote: "We never find out if the elves are magicked to like being enslaved (re: Hermione is wrong), or if they are like humans with Stockholms who know nothing but slavery and are thus afraid of freedom (r..."

Actually given the fact that a lot of "magics" in Harry Potter books are metaphors of real life situations (e.g. dememtors & Patronus charm) I'm not sure if the two cases would be that different, i.e. the "magic" that makes elves love their owners can be a metaphor of all the social/cultural/educational institutions that perpetuate slavery throughout human history.

I think JK Rowling put it in for humor and to show that Hermione can get a little over the top...not seriously...

I think it is both for humor and a subversion of some fantasy tropes about to magical pets/servants/companions, and it also fits nicely into the anti-racism theme of the whole series.

Whoa. isn't it enough that she is standing up for something better than nothing at all?

That is the problem with people nowadays. Nobody stands up and speaks out against injustice and when they do, they are criticized because the way they are doing it is not perfect..

Give the poor girl a break!

Peeves wrote: "Whoa. isn't it enough that she is standing up for something better than nothing at all?

That is the problem with people nowadays. Nobody stands up and speaks out against injustice and when they d..."

Agreed.

1. Hermione drives me NUTS.
2. As Hagrid and Ron say in the book, the house-elves LIKE looking after humans.

I believe that House elves should have the right to serve or not to serve. Look at Dobby: did he want to serve the Malfoys? No. Just because the House elves seem to like serving doesn't give wizards the automatic right to make it so that they HAVE to serve. Give the little guys a chance! See what they want!
Also, we know little about what house elves really want: we just see them every so often in their working environments. Have wizards conducted research? Instead of saying: free all house elves or enslave all house elves, how come no one thinks of freeing them to do what they want, or making a contract that can be signed in the event that a master is cruel?
That would make a lot more sense.

Ya, but she just wanted the best for both Ron and Harry so even though she has a huge brain her heart is still bigger.
POINT BLANK, YOU WERE BURNED!

Why on earth did Rowling create house elves in the first place? What was her point? Her creation of them and Hermione's reaction to the enslavement of house elves makes the writer sounds like a gradual emancipationist, who is reluctant to allow a slave to immediately enjoy the benefits of immediate freedom. Even worse, Rowling portrayal of the house elves border on infantilization - the way Margaret Mitchell portrayed African-Americans in "GONE WITH THE WIND".

What on earth was that woman thinking?

What the heck are you people talking about? You are so off track. Harry Potter's whole series is over for good. Can everybody just respect that and move on please?
By the way, Fantastic Beast and Where To Find Them is coming out in theaters next year. (2016)

ᏒIᎪlᎥstᎥc wrote: "Lauralie wrote: "Ya, but she just wanted the best for both Ron and Harry so even though she has a huge brain her heart is still bigger.
POINT BLANK, YOU WERE BURNED!"

Who?"
Hey lady in the ugly sweater YOU WERE BURNED!

I think that SPEW's main purpose is to act as a metaphor:

It's a metaphor between purebloods and half/muggle borns. It's making a comparison between the way that purebloods treat people because their blood is finer and the way wizards treat muggles and elves and goblins just because they're not wizards.

The mechanics of it are Hermione doesn't know enough/doesn't leave room for people to offer their own opinions about SPEW and therefore comes off as intruding. I think she has some things right and some things wrong. What I believe is that house elves should be given the CHOICE whether or not to serve, and they can't be abused or made slaves, unable to get out of their situations.

This is a great point, and yes, while it is true Hermione shouldn't push her own ideas and desires onto house elves, I do believe she was heading in the right direction in the fact that house elves are severely mistreated. If you go back to how Mr. Crouch treated Winky and how Dobby was treated by the Malfoys and how Sirius treated Kreacher, she was very correct in that they deserve to be treated as living people with emotions rather than as slaves. And while again it isn't right for Hermione to tell the Hogwarts elves what they should be wanting, she is right in that they should be given the opportunity and right to be treated as equals /if they want to be/. For instance, Dobby did want wages and Dumbledore gave him the opportunity to earn them, just as he had offered wages to the other Hogwarts elves. Hermione might have wanted to educate the elves out of their so-called "brainwashing" and might have gone too far with it, but in all honestly you can't really blame her when you take into account the prejudice and maltreatment she's experienced herself as a muggle-born within the magical community. She's simply doing what she thinks is right.

If you don't support S.P.E.W. then you voted for Trump.

Seriously, though, in the context of the novel, the house elves are literally magically enslaved beings. Of the freed house elves that we see in GoF (Dobby and Winky) it seems apparent that they have, outside of that magical control, perfectly normal human-like emotions and character. From what I can tell the people who control house elves have literally the power of life and death over them--and not just life and death, but a really horrible, tortuous never-ending existence. So, the deference of house elves to their "masters" (a term that should give anybody pause to begin with) is almost certainly based upon a lifetime of living under an oppression more abject than even real world slavery. Dumbledore is no Lincoln in GoF, but he immediately recognizes that Dobby should get wages for his labor at Hogwarts where the house elves are otherwise treated as more or less invisible by the students/staff.

So, I'd wear a S.P.E.W. badge if I were in the Potter universe. In fact, I'd probably plot to free house elves, Dobby-style if anyone I knew owned (because it really is owned here, isn't it?) one.

I didn't like S.P.E.W. at all. House elves want to be house elves, not humans. At first Hermione just knitted scarfs and hats for them and protested house elf abuse, but then it went way out of hand. She expected them to demand pay, go on some elfinism strike or something. She wanted them to change their entire lifestyles.
Look Hermione, they're happy where they are. They like working for free. It's what they've been doing all their lives. They devote themselves to a master, and yes, sadly, there are Luciuses out there that are abusive and evil, but there are some good people out there as well. They would treat them decently. No, not like humans exactly; they aren't humans now, are they? That's what changed Hermione's game plan. She started viewing them as human. But they're NOT. Just because they can talk and many are fairly smart does not mean they should do like goblins and go into banking. They seem to believe that their sole purpose is to dutifully serve a master. Elves like Dobby are the exception.
House elves do what they like. Hermione didn't suggest, she IMPOSED, and I find that very, very annoying. She didn't leave them alone when it was almost clear that they didn't want her messing with their lives. They're content the way they are, okay, 'Mione?
That's where S.P.E.W. went wrong. That's why I just can't support it: it went too far.
But I don't hate Hermione for it. She sympathized with them because she almost felt this way about herself. She couldn't fit the standards of her own society because she is and always will be a 'Mudblood.' I pity her a bit. She feels like these elves deserve a chance just as she does. If they can rise to a respectable position, then why can't she?
I feel like she almost wanted to prove herself by creating this organization. It was almost like, if her goals were reached, she would think, "Well, look at that. They did it. And so can I."

Bre wrote: "House elves do what they like."

I think you may have misunderstood the novel quite a bit here. They don't do what they like. They are compelled to do whatever they are told to do, and they have been in that situation for the entirety of the existence. So, yes, they do say things about how much they prefer their servitude, but that's in the context of them being held in a mental state of servitude that is more profound than even the most brutal real world slavery. House elves can be (and we see them being) compelled to torture themselves at the whim of their masters. In that context, you're not meant to take their assurances that they prefer their enslavement seriously.

So, for instance, in a lot of slave narratives in English, the slaves will flatter and abase themselves for their masters, sometimes going to extremes of language (sometimes this kind of thing is called "signifying" in Af-Am Studies) to heap praise upon the people who own them, but using language that might be just a bit over-the-top to indicate that it is, essentially, bullshit for lack of a better word. That's how you're supposed to understand the commentary of the enslaved house elves about their condition.

Bre wrote: " Hermione didn't suggest, she IMPOSED, and I find that very, very annoying."

I have to suggest that your characterization of Hermione's behavior is very inaccurate. She imposed? She started getting signatures and distributed badges to raise awareness. That's not imposing anything. People are free to disagree with her and do. She presents an argument and makes a statement. If you find that annoying for some reason then I don't know what to tell you other than: it's a book. Maybe you should chill out a 'smidge. Your objections here don't seem to be based on the text, so you should probably step away for a minute and think about what they are actually based on.

Yeah, it is a book, and I love Hermione, and it's a little embarrassing to be called out on my temper, but you're right. It was melodramatic.
It doesn't exactly change what I think, though. Even if it's just a book, Rowling's famous for mentioning, handling, or fighting major topics in her writing.
And she likes to address these head-on. Sometimes she focuses on the worst side of a subject, and that's a great way to battle it. I admire her for it.
But as I said earlier, just because these things are terrible doesn't mean there isn't some decency to it. We saw the worst sides of a house elf's life. Dobby's and Winky's treatment were both horrible. Winky practically got drunk on Butterbeer because she was neglected by her master. Dobby was abused literally and verbally.
But does every wizard alive do this? Are they so broken that they need fixing?
I'm not condoning slavery or abuse at all. I just know that if I was told that everything I know to do isn't right and should be changed, and if I remotely enjoyed my work, then I wouldn't like it. The house elves were annoyed.
The definition of the word impose is:
1. force (something unwelcome or unfamiliar) to be accepted or put in place.
It doesn't have to be on a grand scale, like Hermione going to the Ministry and trying to implement change herself, but she did try to force acceptance of change on these house elves. It was small, but it annoyed me, which is the point.
Their minds haven't been warped or anything. Again, we only saw the worst cases of abuse. There are kind people out there, and there are unkind.
They're pretty set in their ways. From what I saw of the house elves working for Dumbledore, they seemed overjoyed that they could have an opportunity like that. Hermione refused to eat her food in the Great Hall because she found out it was house-elf prepared, starting her campaign. She wanted them to change.
It was a little silly in the book, but the undertone was serious enough to warrant this discussion.

i say forget what she was doin with the campaign, the name of it is what im concerned about. i mean S.P.E.W.?

Chloe wrote: "i say forget what she was doin with the campaign, the name of it is what im concerned about. i mean S.P.E.W.?"

I think that was chosen by JKR for comedic effect. Later it becomes the Elf Liberation Front or E.L.F.

@Bre: If Hermione imposes her desire for the house elves to be free upon the elves, how is that different from any other order that is imposed upon them? If you say that house elves want to be slaves, except that they don't actually want to follow some particular orders, doesn't that mean that logically they don't actually want to be slaves? For instance, Hermione could have just ordered them to take clothes. Your argument really collapses in on itself that way: you say they should have the freedom to be slaves, but it's because of that very slavery that they don't actually have the freedom to make any choices about it.

Bre wrote: "...we only saw the worst cases of abuse."

Did we really? I'd say it was more the opposite; we only saw the best case scenarios. I've seen literature about real life slavery which is much worse than anything you see in the HP books. Stuff like torture, rape and enforced breeding. There's no reason why that kind of thing wouldn't happen to house elves, but it's a book series aimed at children, so of course JKR doesn't show anything as evil as that. It's also worth noting that the slavery in HP is enforced by magic, so unlike in real life, there's no chance for a slave to say "Hey wait a second, I don't want to do that". They can be forced to commit crimes at their master's whim. They can be compelled to take the blame for any crime they commit. Basically, every moral choice is taken out of their hands.

That's another aspect of this by the way: if the house elves want to be slaves, then someone has to own them. They are essentially forcing this immoral choice upon humans, and doing their utmost to avoid taking any responsibility for themselves.

Finally, have you considered things like, what would happen to the elves if Voldemort took over Hogwarts? The whole idea that it's fine for them to be slaves because they have a good situation falls apart if you broaden your time line enough, since no one lives forever. Over a long enough period their good situation is in fact pretty much guaranteed to end at some point, and it becomes more and more likely that they would end up being abused. Most people who would want to own slaves are at least selfish enough to not want to do house work for themselves and to not care about the moral issues related to owning slaves. Further than that, historically a lot of slave owners were sadists, and slavery created a situation where they could do anything at all without suffering any kind of legal consequences.

ok ok. i get that. but all i said is the name sounds wrong. im just commenting that the word spew reminds me of the time my three year old cousin spewed spaghetti making it look like worms fell out of his mouth. thats all.