The logic of vegetarianism : Essays and dialogues / by Henry S. Salt.

  • Henry Stephens Salt
Date:
1899
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The logic of vegetarianism : Essays and dialogues / by Henry S. Salt. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The University of Leeds Library. The original may be consulted at The University of Leeds Library.

    20/132 page 10
    Vegetarian : Possibly; but we were talking not of chemistry but of morals, and an egg is certainly not morally identical with an ox. Superior Person : Tut, tut! How or where does the moral phase of food-taking enter the science of dietetics ? Vegetarian : At a good many points, I think. One of them is the question of cannibalism. Excuse me for smiling, but why would you refuse a slice of roast man ? Superior Person : Is it necessary to introduce so revolting a subject ? Vegetarian : Allow me to read you a passage from the Encyclopaedia Britannica : “Man being by nature [?] carnivorous as well as frugivorous, and human flesh being not unfit for human food, the question arises why mankind generally have not only avoided it, but have looked with horror on exceptional individuals and races addicted to cannibalism. It is evident on consideration that both emotional and religious motives must have contributed to bring about this prevailing state of mind.” Superior Person : Of course. Why read me all that ? Vegetarian : To show you that what you call “the moral phase of food-taking” has undoubtedly affected our diet. The ver}' thought of eating human flesh is revolting to you. Yet human flesh is chemically identical with animal flesh, and if it be true that to boil an egg is the same thing as to roast an ox, it follows that to butcher an ox is the same thing as to murder a man. Such is the logical position in which you have placed yourself by ignoring the fact that all life is not equally valuable, but that the higher the life the greater the responsibility incurred by those who destroy it. Or it may be that the Superior Person, instead of deny- ing that morals affect dietetics, himself poses as so austere a moralist as to scorn the wretched half-measure of merely abstaining from flesh-food while still using animal pro- ducts. The result is in either case the same. The all-or- nothing argument is sometimes put forward in this fashion :— Superior Person : Well, as far as the right or wrong of the question is concerned, I would not care to be a Vegetarian at all, unless I were a thorough one. What can be the good of for- swearing animal food in one form if you take it in another ? Vegetarian : But surely it is rational to deal with the worst abuses first. To insist on an all-or-nothing policy would be fatal
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3