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
“And yet those channels of sympathy for inferior animals, long--a
very long--custom has not been able altogether to stifle. Even now,
notwithstanding the narrow, joyless, and hard-hearted tendency of
the prevailing superstitions; even now we discover, in every corner
of the globe, some good-natured _prejudice_ in behalf of [certain
of] the persecuted animals; we perceive, in every country, certain
privileged animals, whom even the ruthless jaws of gluttony dare
not to invade. For, to pass over unnoticed the vast empires of
India and of China, where the lower orders of life are considered
as relative parts of society, and are protected by the laws and
religion of the natives,[201] the Tartars abstain from several
kinds of animals; the Turks are charitable to the very dog, whom
they abominate; and even the English peasant pays towards the
_red-breast_ an inviolable respect to the rights of hospitality.
“Long after the perverse practice of devouring the flesh of animals
had grown into inveterate habit among peoples, there existed still
in almost every country, and of every religion, and of every sect
of philosophy, a wiser, a purer, and more holy class of men who
preserved by their institutions, by their precepts, and by their
example, the memory of primitive innocence [?] and simplicity. The
Pythagoreans abhorred the slaughter of any animal life; Epicurus
and the worthiest part of his disciples bounded their delights with
the produce of their garden; and of the first Christians several
sects abominated the feast of blood, and were satisfied with the
food which Nature, unviolated, brings forth for our support....
“Man, in a state of nature, is not, apparently, much superior to
other animals. His organisation is, without doubt, extremely happy;
but then the dexterity of his figure is counterpoised by great
advantages in other beings. Inferior to the Bull in force, and in
fleetness to the Dog, the _os sublime_, or erect front, a feature
he bears in common with the Monkey, could scarcely have inspired
him with those haughty and magnificent ideas which the pride of
human refinement thence endeavours to deduce. Exposed, like his
fellow-creatures, to the injuries of the air, urged to action by
the same physical necessities, susceptible of the same impressions,
actuated by the same passions, and equally subject to the pains of
disease and to the pangs of dissolution, the simple savage never
dreams that his nature was so much more noble, or that he drew his
origin from a purer source or more remote than the other animals in
whom he saw a resemblance so complete.
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