Eating meat is good, says the philosopher

New regime just fell!

The illustration for The Intrinsic Perspective is by Alexander Naughton

Imagine a dystopian future in which aliens with a taste for human flesh abduct a group of people from Earth and raise them as livestock on their alien planet. Humans on the alien planet are kept alive "free-range", able to interact and live their lives, but only for their first 20 years. Then they are harvested for food.

If you were an alien politician concerned about the ethical mistreatment of humans, would you advocate (a) the continuation of the system but with better treatment for humans (faster death, better living conditions, longer life), or (b) to completely shut down the system, although this would mean humans would soon die within a generation as they would be unable to survive on the alien planet. Quick, which would you recommend: (a) or (b)?

Like all philosophical thought experiments, this is just a fable, but it contrasts the issue. I've written before about longtermism, the idea that future lives have moral weight - in which case there will be millions of humans on this alien world who will never exist if you choose (b) and abandon to their fate on the hostile planet. So it seems rather natural to push for (a) instead and push for better treatment. Even if, on the net, the humans of the extraterrestrial world suffer, is oblivion really the preferable alternative to the suffering of the net? Especially if you could alleviate that suffering through action? It reminds me of the story of the ax killer utility, which only targets people with chronic back pain, because their net suffering will, on top of their...