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
As for their food, while they seem not to have been bound to total
abstinence from every kind of flesh, they may be considered to have
been almost Vegetarian in practice. To kill any innocent individual
of the non-human species that had sought refuge or an asylum amongst
them was a breach of the most sacred laws: to spare the domesticated
races, or fellow-workers with man, even in an enemy’s country, was a
solemn duty. For, says Porphyry, their founder had no groundless fear
that there could be any overabundance of life productive of famine to
ourselves, inasmuch as he knew, first, that those animals who bring
forth many young at a time are short lived, and, secondly, that their
too rapid increase is kept down by other hostile animals. “A proof of
which is,” he continues, “that though we abstain from eating very many,
such as dogs, wild beasts, rats, lizards, and others, there is yet no
fear that we should ever suffer from famine in consequence of their
excessive multiplication; and, again, it is one thing to have to kill,
and another to eat, since we have to kill many ferocious animals whom
we do not also eat.”
He quotes the historians of Syria who allege that, in the earlier
period, the inhabitants of that part of the world abstained from all
flesh, and, therefore, from sacrifice; and that when, afterwards,
to avert some impending misfortune they were induced to offer up
propitiatory victims, the practice of flesh-eating was by no means
general. And Asklepiades says, in his History of Cyprus and Phœnicia,
that “no living being was sacrificed to heaven, nor was there even
any express law on the subject, _since it was forbidden by the law
of Nature_ (νομῷ φυσικῷ):” that, in course of time, they took to
occasional propitiatory sacrifice: and that, at one of these times,
the sacrificing priest happened to place his blood-smeared finger on
his mouth, was tempted to repeat the action, and thus introduced
the habit of flesh-eating, whence the general practice. As for the
Persian _Magi_ (the successors of Zerdusht), we are informed that the
principal and most esteemed of their order neither eat nor kill any
living being, while those of the second class eat the flesh of some,
but not of domesticated, animals; nor do even the third order eat
indiscriminately. Instances are adduced of certain peoples who, being
compelled by necessity to live upon flesh, have evidently deteriorated
and been rendered savage and ferocious, “from which examples it is
clearly unbecoming men of good disposition to belie their human nature
(τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης καταψεύδεσθαι φύσεως).”
Amongst individuals he instances the example of the traditionary
Athenian legislator Triptolemus--
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