Augustus
…
Scenario:
It's the year 2100 and all meat is now lab grown without harming any animals.
The global trade in animal meats was unanimously outlawed by global treaty in 2060, and eating animal meat is today viewed as being almost as bad as eating human flesh. As with cannibalism today, outside of a few weirdos, there is universal agreement that eating animal meats is a repulsive and egregious crime.
The historical trade in animal meats is seen as one of humanity's most harmful and immoral actions.
Question:
How should people in this hypothetical society view the meat eaters eaters of the past? (Your answer should be contingent on all of the above being true, not your current view of meat eating)
Should they be seen as:
1. Evil/deeply immoral, no meat eater can be viewed in a favourable light no matter how great their other achievements. There have always been vegetarians after all, and we can see animals do suffer so there is no excuse. They should be cancelled.
2. Deeply flawed. They are complicit in a terrible crime, so while we can still accept they did some good, they can never be admirable people overall.
3. Complex characters. We blame them for their crime of meat-eating for which they should have known better, but we can still see them as admirable overall based on other qualities
4. A product of their time. Values change and it is silly to blame people for being socialised from birth into a system that found meat eating perfectly normal. They should be judged by the standards of their time so their meat-eating is not something that should be held against them as a moral failing.
Bonus question: How likely do you think it is that something approaching the above scenario will happen in the future?
It's the year 2100 and all meat is now lab grown without harming any animals.
The global trade in animal meats was unanimously outlawed by global treaty in 2060, and eating animal meat is today viewed as being almost as bad as eating human flesh. As with cannibalism today, outside of a few weirdos, there is universal agreement that eating animal meats is a repulsive and egregious crime.
The historical trade in animal meats is seen as one of humanity's most harmful and immoral actions.
Question:
How should people in this hypothetical society view the meat eaters eaters of the past? (Your answer should be contingent on all of the above being true, not your current view of meat eating)
Should they be seen as:
1. Evil/deeply immoral, no meat eater can be viewed in a favourable light no matter how great their other achievements. There have always been vegetarians after all, and we can see animals do suffer so there is no excuse. They should be cancelled.
2. Deeply flawed. They are complicit in a terrible crime, so while we can still accept they did some good, they can never be admirable people overall.
3. Complex characters. We blame them for their crime of meat-eating for which they should have known better, but we can still see them as admirable overall based on other qualities
4. A product of their time. Values change and it is silly to blame people for being socialised from birth into a system that found meat eating perfectly normal. They should be judged by the standards of their time so their meat-eating is not something that should be held against them as a moral failing.
Bonus question: How likely do you think it is that something approaching the above scenario will happen in the future?