I would expect others (but not necessarily everyone) to agree with ethical choices derived from these criteria because those others also have similar ethical intuitions resulting from the same evolutionary process.

The human animal is good at pattern-recognition, so naturally the criteria are presented in a mode where they can be quickly compared to any given situation to see what fits best.

Any moral code used in this way is not absolute. The criteria are short-hand bullet-points on a handy list – useful for quick reference when experiencing moral indecision: don't kill, steal or lie, to give a few simple examples. These are not hard-and-fast unbreakable commandments.

So by what means do you weigh up the pros and cons, and how does this fit with an atheistic/evolutionary worldview? And why should everyone else agree with your ethic? Imagine you were the one trying to abolish the slave trade- why should (that's a moral should) anyone agree with you and stop enforcing slavery?

As for "how can an atheist be against slavery" – easy, it says here in my little book that slavery is wrong. I don't need to consider the consequences of my actions or opinions, I just need to follow the instructions in my little book. If I didn't have my little book, I might have to weigh the pros and cons, and consider how I would feel if someone were to enslave me (and my family and friends, and their families) against my will. But I'd rather just follow my little book. Now, where did I put it?

Oh, I forgot. I don't have one.

Slavery ruled by Biblical law is a way of paying off your debts. You've got yourself into financial trouble, or you've stolen a load of sheep and you have to pay back with money you don't have. All you have is yourself. Slavery allows you to sell yourself for a period of time (not forever, all dependent on where you are in the Jewish calendar) to work for and be looked after by a master.

The master has to feed you, house you and release you after a certain time. In return you pay off all your debts. If, when it's your time to go free you don't want to, you have the option of becoming a permanent slave.

So what have we got? Someone voluntarily getting their debts paid off by working full time for someone who pays for their upkeep. In other words, a pretty similar scenario to modern day employment. Or, at worst, modern day imprisonment.

So what is necessarily wrong about slavery? By what ethic can what I've put above be condemned? I'd be interested to hear, particularly from those who claim not to be religious.

May I repeat once more, I am anti slave trade and had I been an MP at Wilberforce's time I would have been at his side the whole way through. He was fighting against a completely corrupt system with involuntary slaves. I do not have one breath of argument in favour of that.

Interestingly though, unless you have some kind of religious dogma yourself, how can an atheist be against slavery and remain consistent to his/her atheism?

"Going into slavery is entirely voluntary…" Really? This is an interesting interpretation of entirely and voluntary.

Do you guys believe in prison? How is that a better system (or indeed different system) than a period of slavery for criminals?

Moreover, tell me why from your perspective slavery is wrong? Isn't it just matter in motion?

We want to know why you think it is OK to own a slave…