It should be different in the sense that the Jedi are not profiting from institutionalized slavery here. The Republic owns them and is using them, the Jedi can take charge and mitigate that, or let the republic unabashedly fight with a slave army and either win or lose against an army of megacorporations. This army was created and revealed right as a galactic war started, they are gonna be used no matter what. The Jedi probably should have just left, but they felt they couldn't sit back and do nothing, best to end the war soon.

We even see Padme protesting against an act that would order even more clones. It's not like the Jedi just said "fuck it" and ran with the slavery stuff. They are more comparable to abolitionists in the Union army than slave-owners. Or heck maybe even leaders of Soviet penal battalions in ww2. Perhaps the best comparison would be the British officers in the revolutionary war who created freed slave units and despite the coercive nature of offering freedom for service, and doing nothing about British slave-owners, did take seriously the promise made to the men they commanded.

Just making the "nice slave-owners" comparison is essentialist, when in our world figures way closer to the Jedi's position exist, like Lord Dunmore. We can call on rhetoric all day, but our own history is way more complicated, so why should we only apply only essentialism here?