"The proof that man should eat meat is that he always has done so, does now, and always will." And again: "Nobody will want to make out that he (the advocate of vegetarianism) is wrong, but folk will just go on suiting themselves as before. Shelley and Thoreau, Wagner and Edward FitzGerald, were vegetarians, but, then, Wellington and Gladstone partook of the roast beef of Old England, and were none the worse." There is a sublime simplicity about these statements which is most impressive, but I cannot think that any wrong is done to the case against vegetarianism by not including them in a discussion which purports to be a logical one. H. S. S. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CONTENTS PAGE PREFACE v INTRODUCTORY 1 WHY "VEGETARIAN"? 4 THE _RAISON D'ÊTRE_ OF VEGETARIANISM 9 THE PAST AND PRESENT OF VEGETARIANISM 13 STRUCTURAL EVIDENCE 18 THE APPEAL TO NATURE 24 THE HUMANITARIAN ARGUMENT 29 PALLIATIONS AND SOPHISTRIES 35 THE CONSISTENCY TRICK 41 THE DEGRADATION OF THE BUTCHER 47 THE ÆSTHETIC ARGUMENT 51 THE HYGIENIC ARGUMENT 57 DIGESTION 62 CONDITIONS OF CLIMATE 67 FLESH MEAT AND MORALS 71 THE ECONOMIC ARGUMENT 77 DOUBTS AND DIFFICULTIES 83 BIBLE AND BEEF 89 THE FLESH-EATER'S KITH AND KIN 95 VEGETARIANISM AS RELATED TO OTHER 101 REFORMS CONCLUSION 109 INDEX 115 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ THE LOGIC OF VEGETARIANISM INTRODUCTORY