That's more of an indication of how our modern sensibilities have changed.
When I was a kid I was taken to the local zoo, where lions were displayed in small, bare concrete cages. I felt sorry for them, and did not enjoy the trip. But that doesn't mean the zookeepers were bad people, people just thought differently about animals in those days.
You're right, it really is too difficult to live and let live. It's really too difficult to think, is everyone benefitting all that much from the pain I'm inflecting on whatever I'm hurting. Please, these are adults that knew what they were doing and that the pain they were causing didn't satisfy some need, but some want. If you don't want to go down in history as an asshole, don't be a dick when you or your tribe are only benefitting beyond basic needs and necessities.
A lot of people are okay with testing things like drugs on animals. You can at least imagine a scenario where Edison was driven by concern for public welfare, thinking the higher voltage used by Tesla was going to cause disasters and trying to make people aware of the danger.
And electrocution is seen currently as the method of choice in all modern slaughterhouses of the planet to kill humanely animals for meat, instantly and saving a lot of this nervous excitation called pain. Edison has saved more animal pain than the whole Peta team probably.
I've seen this thinking before: So the moral question is, 'if we can give animals (1) artificial/unnatural, but (2) reasonably enjoyable, and (3) relatively pain free,' for (4) some benefit to the machine of society, is that just? Interestingly, many modern liberal thinkers say no, but when this same moral questioning is applied to humans, you run into what the anti-liberal terrorist Ted Kraczynski was arguing about.
In other words, as of now you and I both live and probably work in society, sacrificing our natural freedom and state in nature to enjoy comforts and safety of our technological civilization; and yes, to die in a hospital rather than in nature.
Anyways I'm not suggesting any answers, just juxtaposing the same ideas applied unequally, which suggests an implicit collective answer of 'yes'to your question; or at least a tolerance to that answer.
And it's unfortunately partially unworldly thinking about these social contracts anyways: in the real world, farms are still grossly mistreating animals, as does civilization to people, where outcomes stem too often from money and violence; not always from social contracts / commitments to morals--which brings us full circle to the life of Tesla and his struggles with bullying.
I would be fuming if somebody electrocute me, that's for sure; but much better than if they kill me with a rusty axe. That would be very impolite and unforgeivable.
It's usually a mistake to judge people from another time using modern sensibilities.
It's like thinking people from the 1800's were all grim because they look grim in photographs. But that was just an artifact of them having to hold still for the long exposure times.
I bet those people would think people of our time are horribly ill-mannered and rude.
I don't need to meet him - his contemporaries speak enough about his manner, and way of doing business for me to feel okay making the pronouncement - bear in mind, many of my closest friends are an asshole much the way, edison, gates and jobs are/were - being an asshole does not make you a bad person - it just means you may have little patience for convention.
Keep in mind that Edison was constantly being sued by his rivals (Edison nearly always won). Any successful businessman is going to have legions of detractors.
