The instant case is no longer at controversy, as the judge has dropped the restraining order. Let's continue, anyway. A person who is being ordered to work aga

The instant case is no longer at controversy, as the judge has dropped the restraining order. Let's continue, anyway. A person who is being ordered to work against their will has no legal or ethical duty to do so, and you haven't offered an argument in favor of it. Legally, the 13th Amendment: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Conviction is necessary. You can't be forced to work while in jail waiting around to be tried, even if you've been indicted. Any legal argument that you want to offer needs to meet that. Now, ethics. You countered my > Forcing people to work is immoral, even if the work saves millions. with Refusing to do work that would save millions is also immoral and completely ignored my analogy of organ donors. I'd be happy to hear your arguments, if they aren't just contradictions. This isn't Argument Clinic. What does "analyze the thing holistically" mean if you have neither legality nor morality on your side?