See also [839] Of critique of opposition to free will.
Imagine slaves and a master. The master owns the slaves and the slaves have no hope of gaining freedom. The slaves are traded like common chickens at a typical wet market; many are bought into the lowest class while many others are born into it. Suffice to say, the slaves are properties of the master, just like cattle to ranchers.
The relationship between the slaves and the master is essentially a bond; a contract. A slave and the master agree to come into a bond and take their appropriate roles willingly, given rational possibilities. Any breach of bond will bring in repercussion. Perhaps death is the best incentive to discourage any side from breaking away from the contract.
Regardless, the presence of free will alone makes the relationship between the master and the slave palatable; however despicable slavery is, no matter how disproportionate the punishment is (tag).
What’s not palatable is when a person enters a bond without him knowing it. One of such instances is being born into slavery. For a newborn, how is it possible to the newborn to enter a slave-master relationship without knowing it?
In this case, the newborn isn’t given a chance to choose. It seems that the fate of the newborn has been predetermined and is doomed to be a slave all his life. As he grows up, he is bounded by an agreement that he didn’t choose to get into in the first place. How is that fair?
He isn’t free to determine his own path. He’s a prisoner. He’s a slave. He’s a victim of an unfair arrangement; an arrangement that he had no say. How is that fair?
