The Ethics of Diet: A Catena of Authorities Deprecatory of the Practice of Flesh EatingWilliams, Howard
Philosophy
The Ethics of Diet: A Catena of Authorities Deprecatory of the Practice of Flesh Eating
Williams, Howard
Diet; Vegetarianism
His character (as we have already remarked) is revealed in his
_Confessions_--which was written, in part, during his brief exile
in England. It, as well as his other productions, shews him to us
as a man of extraordinary sensibility, which, in regard to himself,
occasionally degenerated into a sort of disease or, in popular
language, _morbidness_ (a word, by the way, constantly abused by the
many who seem to excuse their own insensibility to surrounding evils
by stigmatising with that vague expression the acuter feeling of the
few), which sometimes assumed the appearance of partial unsoundness of
mind. This it was that caused him to suspect and quarrel with his best
friends, and which, we may suppose, led him, in his minute dissection
of himself, to exaggerate his real moral infirmities.
In summing up his personal character we shall perhaps impartially judge
him to have been, on the whole, amiable rather than admirable, of good
impulses, and of a naturally humane disposition, cultivated by reading
and reflection, but to have been wanting in firmness of mind and in
that virtue so much esteemed in the school of Pythagoras--self control.
His philosophy is distinguished rather by refinement than by vigour or
depth of thought.
It is in the education of the young that Rousseau exerts his eloquence
to enforce the importance of a non-flesh diet:--
“One of the proofs that the taste of flesh is not natural to man
is the indifference which children exhibit for that sort of meat,
and the preference they all give to vegetable foods, such as
milk-porridge, pastry, fruits, &c. It is of the last importance
not to _denaturalise_ them of this primitive taste (_de ne pas
dénaturer ce goût primitif_), and not to render them carnivorous,
if not for health reasons, at least _for the sake of their
character_. For, however the experience may be explained, it is
certain that great eaters of flesh are, in general, more cruel and
ferocious than other men. This observation is true of all places
and of all times. English coarseness is well known.[175] The
Gaures, on the contrary, are the gentlest of men. All savages are
cruel, and it is not their morals that urge them to be so; this
cruelty proceeds _from their food_. They go to war as to the chase,
and treat men as they do bears. Even in England the butchers are
not received as legal witnesses any more than surgeons.[176] Great
criminals harden themselves to murder by drinking blood.[177] Homer
represents the _Cyclopes_, who were flesh-eaters, as frightful
men, and the Lotophagi [Lotus-eaters] as a people so amiable that
as soon as one had any dealing with them one straightway forgot
everything, even one’s country, to live with them.”
Rousseau, in a free translation, here quotes a considerable part of
Plutarch’s _Essay_. He insists, especially, that children should be
early accustomed to the pure diet:--
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account