I think your ethics rationalization is fine in itself, but is overly complicated for such a basic concept as slavery and therefor opens itself up to being scrutinized by others. I agree that slavery is wrong however if someone chooses to be a slave then I do see an argument for the fact that is also their will, even in a sexual sense as an example (dominance and the like.) A sexual slave if they've chosen such a role, then is still allowed to be free to make such a decision. Mind you this is essentially still role playing but I don't think that the master is in the wrong because it was a consensual exchange between both participants. I also feel that there's certain jobs that apply to this same general concept. Prostitution for instance, it's a tricky business when discussing a prostitutes right to do what they do since it's generally not accepted because it's taking advantage of another human being but in some places its legal, then again it's really all about motives and freedom of the individual. Also you have to be very clear on your working definition of slavery. For example if using the definition that says generally forced labor for no payment this isn't quite what the "slaves" we think of went through. Not undermining slaves but they were essentially given jobs to do in exchange for food and a place to live. Because of this concept there has been a number of books written about people in modern day circumstances being essentially slaves. Slaves in the traditional sense do not receive direct monetary payment and so it's not really considered "payment" but isn't this also what minimum wage does to certain Canadians? These individuals have the idea of freedom because they're getting money but it has predetermined places so is this payment really an illusion? Working long hours for the resources to sustain their food and a place to stay. One could then argue that these individuals are not free because they are bound to this situation because of lack of resources and then they are no longer free either and it's also against their will. One could also say that they still have the freedom to spend this money on other things in place of their required needs, then one could argue that this lack of freedom for slaves gave them the ultimate freedom to live since spending money required for resources is a health and safety risk for a person who did receive money. In my opinion a better way of looking at it is contrary to freedom as an obligation. Freedom is defined as freedom because there are no obligations. I would also argue that none of us are truly free based on social and survival obligations but that's for another comment. I think a simpler way of looking at it, is if the person is sane and it is of their own will and free choice, whatever decision they make is valid. If the prostitute genuinely enjoys her/his job, then it's not morally wrong, if the person working minimum wage enjoys what they do, again not morally wrong, if the slave has chosen enslavement based on their own will, then it's not wrong. This also allows you to atleast attempt to rationalize other more complicated grey areas, like assisted suicide etc. Which are touchy when it comes to freedom. It may seem like an over simplification but, well.. that's the point ;) haha. Just some food for thought... Food for work? Slavery? What? Where am I.

I think your ethics rationalization is fine in itself, but is overly complicated for such a basic concept as slavery and therefor opens itself up to being scrutinized by others. I agree that slavery is wrong however if someone chooses to be a slave then I do see an argument for the fact that is also their will, even in a sexual sense as an example (dominance and the like.) A sexual slave if they've chosen such a role, then is still allowed to be free to make such a decision. Mind you this is essentially still role playing but I don't think that the master is in the wrong because it was a consensual exchange between both participants. I also feel that there's certain jobs that apply to this same general concept. Prostitution for instance, it's a tricky business when discussing a prostitutes right to do what they do since it's generally not accepted because it's taking advantage of another human being but in some places its legal, then again it's really all about motives and freedom of the individual. Also you have to be very clear on your working definition of slavery. For example if using the definition that says generally forced labor for no payment this isn't quite what the "slaves" we think of went through. Not undermining slaves but they were essentially given jobs to do in exchange for food and a place to live. Because of this concept there has been a number of books written about people in modern day circumstances being essentially slaves. Slaves in the traditional sense do not receive direct monetary payment and so it's not really considered "payment" but isn't this also what minimum wage does to certain Canadians? These individuals have the idea of freedom because they're getting money but it has predetermined places so is this payment really an illusion? Working long hours for the resources to sustain their food and a place to stay. One could then argue that these individuals are not free because they are bound to this situation because of lack of resources and then they are no longer free either and it's also against their will. One could also say that they still have the freedom to spend this money on other things in place of their required needs, then one could argue that this lack of freedom for slaves gave them the ultimate freedom to live since spending money required for resources is a health and safety risk for a person who did receive money. In my opinion a better way of looking at it is contrary to freedom as an obligation. Freedom is defined as freedom because there are no obligations. I would also argue that none of us are truly free based on social and survival obligations but that's for another comment. I think a simpler way of looking at it, is if the person is sane and it is of their own will and free choice, whatever decision they make is valid. If the prostitute genuinely enjoys her/his job, then it's not morally wrong, if the person working minimum wage enjoys what they do, again not morally wrong, if the slave has chosen enslavement based on their own will, then it's not wrong. This also allows you to atleast attempt to rationalize other more complicated grey areas, like assisted suicide etc. Which are touchy when it comes to freedom. It may seem like an over simplification but, well.. that's the point ;) haha. Just some food for thought... Food for work? Slavery? What? Where am I.

I think your ethics rationalization is fine in itself, but is overly complicated for such a basic concept as slavery and therefor opens itself up to being scrutinized by others. I agree that slavery is wrong however if someone chooses to be a slave then I do see an argument for the fact that is also their will, even in a sexual sense as an example (dominance and the like.) A sexual slave if they've chosen such a role, then is still allowed to be free to make such a decision. Mind you this is essentially still role playing but I don't think that the master is in the wrong because it was a consensual exchange between both participants. I also feel that there's certain jobs that apply to this same general concept. Prostitution for instance, it's a tricky business when discussing a prostitutes right to do what they do since it's generally not accepted because it's taking advantage of another human being but in some places its legal, then again it's really all about motives and freedom of the individual. Also you have to be very clear on your working definition of slavery. For example if using the definition that says generally forced labor for no payment this isn't quite what the "slaves" we think of went through. Not undermining slaves but they were essentially given jobs to do in exchange for food and a place to live. Because of this concept there has been a number of books written about people in modern day circumstances being essentially slaves. Slaves in the traditional sense do not receive direct monetary payment and so it's not really considered "payment" but isn't this also what minimum wage does to certain Canadians? These individuals have the idea of freedom because they're getting money but it has predetermined places so is this payment really an illusion? Working long hours for the resources to sustain their food and a place to stay. One could then argue that these individuals are not free because they are bound to this situation because of lack of resources and then they are no longer free either and it's also against their will. One could also say that they still have the freedom to spend this money on other things in place of their required needs, then one could argue that this lack of freedom for slaves gave them the ultimate freedom to live since spending money required for resources is a health and safety risk for a person who did receive money. In my opinion a better way of looking at it is contrary to freedom as an obligation. Freedom is defined as freedom because there are no obligations. I would also argue that none of us are truly free based on social and survival obligations but that's for another comment. I think a simpler way of looking at it, is if the person is sane and it is of their own will and free choice, whatever decision they make is valid. If the prostitute genuinely enjoys her/his job, then it's not morally wrong, if the person working minimum wage enjoys what they do, again not morally wrong, if the slave has chosen enslavement based on their own will, then it's not wrong. This also allows you to atleast attempt to rationalize other more complicated grey areas, like assisted suicide etc. Which are touchy when it comes to freedom. It may seem like an over simplification but, well.. that's the point ;) haha. Just some food for thought... Food for work? Slavery? What? Where am I.