Not sure what you mean? I am not trying to justify anything I am simply saying that the claim about slave labour being a negative for the slave owner is wrong.
Is that "certain perspective" interesting? Nobody wants to work that's a given that doesn't need to be argued, whence work needs incentives (in a generalised sense) from salary to force.
Most human labour has historically related to food production, production and maintainance of dwellings, sanitation, health, care of the young & elderly, and security (from animals, natural forces, other humans). Since division of labour became possible additional forms of labour emerged, such as science, engineering, and organisation of labour whose raison d'être is to lighten humanity's workload. One can and should certainly ask if work could be organised better, but there is a base load of things that need to be done to perpetuate humanity.
I'm not denying that some work has enobling aspects (e.g. social recognition (in various forms)), but much work doesn't. Speaking from years worth of bitter experience ...
Moreover there is probably quite a bit of rationalisation going on:
since I can't avoid work I might as well pretend I like it, for that
makes life more bearable. More importantly, there is a
virtue-signalling aspect to finding work enobling: since human
emotions are contagious and human behaviour involves a lot of mimesis (= copying others), my public display of taking pleasure in
my own work increases the probability that others find their work
enobling, which in turn increases the amount/quality of their work, and that
leads a better / more productive society which in turn is in my own selfish
interest.
Aside: Max Weber uses a somewhat similar (but more elaborate)
argument when he seeks to explain the emergence of modern society out
of the protestant spirit. The issue of whether we do good because
doing good is intrinsically good or because we crave the social
recognition of good works, has been discussed since antiquity, see for
example Plato's Republic.
What will replace it culturally
when we don't have any work?
Why not look at the facts? Society has always had some members who did not
have to work, for example children, pensioners, the sick, the offspring of the
very rich, wives of middle/upperclass husbands (until recently), women
who divorce a rich husband (under current US alimony laws), the
Saudi/Qatari/Bahreini/Kuwaity royal families. Etc. Most of them don't
have a major problem spending their time. Typically they engage in a
variety of play, fornication, sleep, sport, shopping, eating, hunting,
socialising, playing music, drawing and the like. Moreover, even those
who work have leisure time (e.g. weekends, evenings, holidays) and
generally have no problem filling that time. There is no reason to
believe that this will change when all work has been automated away.