> But dogs and horses don't have the conceptual ideas of freedom and economy, and they enjoy doing the work they're given

This is a fantasy, which is frighteningly similar to the literal justifications used for human slavery in the South.

We have no idea whether dogs have the concept in abstract of 'freedom', but they certainly display the behavior of escaping from enclosures, which would run counter to the claim that they just like whatever lot they're given in life .

And yet when a dog repeatedly escapes from the human who (as the law sees it) owns them, we don't say, "hey, that dog clearly isn't okay with what it's being made to do, or where it's made to live", so why are dogs who don't run away used to justify the opposite? You're only treating their behavior as meaningful when it fits your view of them.

> So as long as we're kind and treat them well, nobody has a problem with their slavery. The idea being that exploitation is linked to suffering, but simply having an asymmetrical relationship is not inherently cruelty.

"Nobody" is doing some have lifting here. And once again, change the species...

> Not to be crass, but we can also bring up other concepts like BDSM. Violence and domestic abuse are objectively bad. But in the context of a safe relationship where all parties are informed, consenting, and enjoy the abuse they're receiving.

When you have a dog who can say, "I consent to this relationship", you'll have that parallel.

Until then, it's not BDSM, it's some guy with a woman tied up in his basement who will insist she's fine with it but can't offer proof, but he can tell when a woman's into it...

And obviously, many dogs are happy. But many are not. And we don't care about them, legally. And many people don't care morally, so I am dubious we will care to collectively see the signs and react morally if and when machine intelligence isn't happy.