A Plea for Vegetarianism and Other Essays/Chapter 2
MORALITY IN DIET.
IT is strange that, among the many important subjects which at this time are demanding investigation from every thoughtful man, Vegetarianism has not attracted more general attention. For, though it cannot be classed among those vexed, "questions of the day" which occupy the time of Parliament and agitate the surface of party politics, yet it may safely be asserted that there is no matter which more truly deserves full and patient inquiry than this question of diet, connected as it is with the deep underlying problems—How to live. How to improve and elevate, mentally and bodily, the lives of our fellow-countrymen. In all ages, from the days of Pythagoras to the days of Shelley, Vegetarianism has had its prophets and apostles ; but they have for the most part stood alone and isolated, solitary lights amidst almost universal darkness. Now, at last, in this progressive age, when the morality of life is more widely studied, and the laws of health and economy are better understood, earnest and hard-working men should be induced to at least give fair and unprejudiced examination to a system which claims to be once most moral, most wholesome, and most economical. For these are the three great advantages which the Vegetarian believes his way of living to posses ; these are the three chief aspects under which Vegetarianism may be viewed ; and surely, amidst all the clamour and din of conflicting theories and creeds, it is right that the voice of Vegetarianism should be heard, and that they cruelty and wastefulness of the system of flesh-eating should not be allowed to pass unchallenged. Obviously the same arguments will not have like weight with all ; for while to the poorer classes it is the economic advantage of Vegetarianism that is of most pressing and immediate importance, to wealthier and more educated people the moral side of the question needs to be most forcibly stated. It is of this last that I now speak. My object is to show that only a bloodless diet is defensible on moral grounds.
There is a passage in Mr. Ruskin's works, where it is declared that a criterion of the morality of an action may be found in song. Actions are morally beautiful in proportion to their capability of becoming the subject of a song. This is a standard from which no Vegetarian will ever shrink, which no flesh-eater will ever dare to accept. The fruits and cereals of a vegetarian meal might well find mention in the purest and most delicate poem. Could the same be said of the repast of a flesh-eater? What are the dainties which Porphyro, in Keats's "Eve of St. Agnes," heaps "with glowing hand" for his love, "in the retired quiet of the night" ? They are "candied apple, quince, and plum, and gourd, manna and dates," and other "delicates" which would rejoice the soul of a Vegetarian. What would have been the effect on the poem, if instead of those, he had heaped beef-steaks and mutton-chops ? And why is it that the mere idea of such a change is at once disgusting and ridiculous ? Again, would it not be admitted on all hands that fruits and herbs and corn would be a right and natural subject for the skill of a vegetarian pot ? Yet what should we think, if some enthusiastic flesh-eater were to give vent to the poetry of his feelings in a "Song of the Slaughter-house," or "Ballads of the Butcher" ? And why is that, while the one subject would be innocent and elevating, the other would be loathsome and degrading ?
This criterion, however, may be considered too fanciful, if we carry it to its logical conclusion. So we will not ask the supporters of the present system to sing of such subjects: we will merely beg of them to think. For thought is surely the best and truest standard by which we may distinguish the right from wrong. That action and system are the best which can best stand the scrutiny of thought. We will therefore venture to think about our diet, even though it be at the risk of shocking delicate-minded ladies and gentlemen, who vote it impolite and disgusting to refer to such matters as the slaughter of animals, and brand all such inquiry with the epithet "morbid," or "sentimental." We will cease to regard "beef," and "mutton," and "pork" as lifeless articles of food, but will remember that they have a close connection with living oxen, and sheep, and swine. We will request those who perpetuate the butchers' trade by eating flesh-meat to consider seriously what that trade is. why is the very name butcher proverbial ? Why is the slaughter-house unmentionable at polite dinner-table ? If the system of flesh-eating is defensible, why must its method of supply be concealed from all thought or reference ? The obvious answer is that this trade is a degrading one, and not only socially but morally degrading. There are many occupations which gentlemen, for social and conventional reasons, would be ashamed to practise, such as shoe-blacking and chimney-sweeping. Yet there is no real or moral degradation in these, such as there is in the wanton slaughter of innocent animals. If our sweeps and shoe-blacks were suddenly to go on strike, and we were compelled to do such work for ourselves, a wise man, however refined, would never be ashamed to soil his hand with soot or blacking. But if, through a similar emergency, he lost the services of his butcher, he might well think twice before he polluted himself with blood.
If, then, it be a degrading occupation to kill animals, how can the habit of eating them be other than degrading ? If we condemn the ignorant and brutal butcher who supplies the flesh, how can we acquit the refined ladies and gentlemen who demand it ? The thoughtlessness alone enables people to endure such a system. From infancy they are taught to ignore what "meat" really is ; until they hardly think of oxen and sheep in connection with beef and mutton.
And now contrast with this diet the life of a Vegetarian. Here there is no need of secrecy and sophistry to make the meal palatable, for the history of beans and lentils is not a record of blood and suffering, and we are not obliged to dismiss all thought as to the origin of our food, lest we should awaken reminiscences of the filth of the pigsty and the butchery of the shambles. There is nothing to conceal, for there is nothing to be ashamed of. It is the only diet which is entirely in keeping with the highest moral instincts of the most intellectual mind.
There are also indirect advantages in Vegetarianism, which can hardly fail to commend it to all those who know the value of temperance, both in food and drink. It is in general closely connected with frugality and simplicity of taste: with teetotalism it is specially allied, for moderation in drink is the natural result of moderation in food, and it is an undoubted fact that the craving for alcohol is enormously lessened by a vegetarian diet.
Here, however, it may perhaps be objected, that, although Vegetarianism may be desirable on abstract grounds of morality and good taste, nevertheless flesh-eating is, for physical reasons, a practical necessity of nature, and, being natural, cannot be immoral. This, of course, belongs rather to the physical than the moral question ; and it remains for those who have satisfied themselves that Vegetarianism is desirable to determine further whether it is practicable. It is sufficient here to indicate the fact that medical men are not only not infallible, but liable to all the prejudices that affect the unprofessional mind ; so that would-be Vegetarians need not be greatly alarmed by the stock arguments which are regularly produced by doctors, cooks, relatives, and other well-meaning persons, in the way of solemn warning and advice. The Vegetarian is assured that the impossibility of such a diet for man is clearly demonstrated by the formation of the teeth, and other structural evidence. Some nations and individuals may contrive to live on vegetable food, in spite of these physical hindrances ; but at any rate in northern climates a flesh diet is necessary, for the sake of heat. And if some obstinate people even here persist in living in perfect health without animal food, still it is absolutely certain (and this is the final resource, the great irrefragable dogma of the flesh-eater) that meat is necessary to foster intellectual vigour, even where physical strength may be supported without it.
And thus the fellow-countrymen of Shelley are led to believe that the finest work cannot be done without the grossest food; and that while man’s mortal body may be nourished on a pure and bloodless diet, it is the intellect—the spark that kindles the fire of poetry, music, science, and the arts—it is the intellect which requires to be fed on the loathsome carcases of slaughtered sheep and bullocks!
Let us, therefore, one and all, undismayed by sonorous warnings and dogmatic assertions, quietly and fearlessly ask our own consciences if the present system of diet is morally right and defensible; and if the answer be, as I have attempted to prove it must be, in the negative, let us not shrink from the consequent duty of attempting a reform. The experience of those who have honestly and seriously made trial of Vegetarianism gives overwhelming testimony in its favour. Its economical advantage is indisputably great; not less conspicuous, to those who make practical proof for themselves, is its physical superiority, insuring, as it does, a simpler, healthier, more enjoyable manner of life, and afi'ording immunity, as Vegetarians very plausibly assert, from many of our worst diseases and epidemics.
The progress of all reforms is slow and in the question of diet, as in all others, a national error takes centuries, as Sydney Smith has observed, “to display the full bloom of its imbecility” ; yet a Vegetarian, without being over sanguine, may well comfort himself with the reflection that, in the case of flesh-eating, these conditions have now been amply fulfilled, and that the outlook is therefore not entirely devoid of encouragement. Centuries have passed; we see our upper classes rioting in degrading wastefulness, while our lower classes are sunk in degrading want, and both alike the victims of degrading, because unnecessary, disease.[1] The failure of our diet system is complete complete ; the bloom of its imbecility is displayed for all eyes to see. Is it too much to hope that we may soon cease to be blinded by prejudice and custom, and that the civilised world may, before many generations have passed, adopt the opinion of the philanthropist Howard, founded on a life-time of experience and observation ? "I am fully persuaded as to the health of our bodies, that herbs and fruits will sustain nature in every respect far beyond the best flesh."
- ↑ "I have come to the conclusion that a proportion, amounting at least to more than one-half of the disease which embitters the middle and latter part of life among the middle and upper classes of the population, is due to avoidable errors in diet" (Sir Henry Thompson on “Diet.” Nineteenth Century, May, 1885). On the other hand, eminent authorities have told us that the London poor suffer mainly from one disease—starvation.