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
“Sensation and perception are the principle of the kinship of
all living beings. And [he reminds his opponents] Zeno and
his followers [the Stoics] admit that alliance or _kinship_
(οἰκειώσις)[83] is the foundation of justice. Now, to the lower
animals pertain perception and the sensations of pain and fear
and injury. Is it not absurd, then, whereas we see that many of
our own species live by brute sense alone, and exhibit neither
reason nor intellect, and that very many of them surpass the most
terrible wild beasts in cruelty, rage, rapine; that they murder
even their own relatives; that they are tyrants and the tools of
tyrants--seeing all this, is it not absurd, I say, to hold that
we are obliged by nature to act leniently towards them, while no
kindness is due from us to the Ox that ploughs, the Dog that is
brought up with us, and those who nourish us with their milk and
cover our bodies with their wool? Is not such a prejudice most
irrational and absurd?”
To the objection of Chrysippus (the second founder of the school of the
Porch) that the gods made us for themselves and for the sake of each
other, and that they made the non-human species for us--a convenient
subterfuge by no means unknown to writers and talkers of our own
times--Porphyry unanswerably replies:--
“Let him to whom this sophism may appear to have weight
or probability, consider how he would meet the dictum of
Karneades[84] that ‘everything in nature is benefited, when it
obtains the ends to which it is adapted and for which it was
generated.’ Now, _benefit_ is to be understood in a more general
way as meaning what the Stoics call _useful_. ‘The hog, however,’
says Chrysippus, ‘was produced by nature for the purpose of being
slaughtered and used for food, and when it undergoes this, it
obtains the end for which it is adapted, and it is therefore
benefited!’ But if God brought other animals into existence for the
use of men, what use do we make of flies, beetles, lice, vipers,
and scorpions? Some of these are hateful to the sight, defile the
touch, are intolerable to the smell, while others are actually
destructive to human beings who fall in their way.[85] With respect
to the _cetacea_, in particular, which Homer tells us live by
myriads in the seas, does not the Demiurgus[86] teach us that they
have come into being for the good of things in general? And unless
they affirm that all things were indeed made for us and on our
sole account, how can they escape the imputation of wrong-doing in
treating injuriously beings that came into existence according to
the _general arrangement_ of Nature?
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