I fundamentally disagree. You are basing your tenets on two overly-broad ideas that don't make for a good basis for an actionable framework. You are kinda motte-and-baileying.
First of all, I dispute that "human autonomy" is the basis for the immorality of slavery. Rather, it is the preservation of human dignity. The subtle difference being, you can cede a certain amount of your autonomy without losing any dignity such as when taking on a specialized role to function in a society (in other words, a job). Actions that violate another's autonomy has some overlap with actions that violate another's dignity but "some overlap" is all that is really there to it.
"Human attention is sacred" therefore...what? Would, for example, schools count as a violation of human attention? A good book? A perfectly fine movie with a smattering of product placement? There's no telling what the blast radius of your principle here is.
Rather than thinking of human attention as a sacred inviolable thing, it is more akin to a currency each of us can spend. We just have to facilitate wiser spending.
First of all, I dispute that "human autonomy" is the basis for the immorality of slavery. Rather, it is the preservation of human dignity. The subtle difference being, you can cede a certain amount of your autonomy without losing any dignity such as when taking on a specialized role to function in a society (in other words, a job). Actions that violate another's autonomy has some overlap with actions that violate another's dignity but "some overlap" is all that is really there to it.
"Human attention is sacred" therefore...what? Would, for example, schools count as a violation of human attention? A good book? A perfectly fine movie with a smattering of product placement? There's no telling what the blast radius of your principle here is.
Rather than thinking of human attention as a sacred inviolable thing, it is more akin to a currency each of us can spend. We just have to facilitate wiser spending.