> For example, consider a prison which forces ... it's [sic] inmates to attend classes to learn job skills and avoid behaviors that landed them in prison. Would this not also be a form of slavery given they are forced to attend? Slavery isn't defined by the slave doing something useful to the owner. A slave is still a slave even if they are doing nothing or if they are being commanded to improve themselves. And in this case I wouldn't see it as immoral.

This raised all sorts of alarms in my head, so I decided to look up a more formal definition. In this case, the source is Wikipedia[0]:

> Slavery is any system in which principles of property law are applied to people, allowing individuals to own, buy and sell other individuals, as a de jure form of property. A slave is unable to withdraw unilaterally from such an arrangement and works without remuneration. Many scholars now use the term chattel slavery to refer to this specific sense of legalised, de jure slavery. In a broader sense, however, the word slavery may also refer to any situation in which an individual is de facto forced to work against their own will.

Your redefinition of slavery is significantly broader than the accepted definition of it. This is extremely problematic in trying to talk about whether or not it's immoral.