one persons ethical grounds wouldnt fully equate the national state objectivity of morality so even if i say its moral or immoral that wouldnt be the universal approach to it ethical relativism is a inductive fallacy and i would say i can state owning a human being in the grounds of oppression and keeping them as property is objectively immoral but i do believe indentured servitude is considered ethically moral so we cannot state something based upon a ethical approach that is another fallacy. So even in the grounds of religion the use of slaves has a double meaning a use of hebrew words to show the difference between slavery(oppression own as things) and slavery(indentured servitude) which in the timeframe of 8000 BC was morally acceped and throughout history was seen as morally accepted until indentured servitude turn into oppressive slavery so me i can answer this and say yes very much so owning a human being in the grounds of being property is objectively immoral and ethically illogical.