Logic of Vegetarianism — INTRODUCTORY

THE MORALIST AT THE SHAMBLES.

Where slaughter'd beasts lie quivering, pile on pile, And bare-armed fleshers, bathed in bloody dew, Ply hard their ghastly trade, and hack and hew, And mock sweet Mercy's name, yet loathe the while The lot that chains them to this service vile, Their hands in hideous carnage to imbrue: Lo, there!

—the preacher of the Good and True, The Moral Man, with sanctimonious smile!

"Thrice happy beasts," he murmurs, "'tis our love, Our thoughtful love that sends ye to the knife (Nay, doubt not, as ye welter in your gore!

);

For thus alone ye earned the boon of life, And thus alone the Moralist may prove His sympathetic soul—by eating more."

------------------------------------------------------------------------ PREFACE

In preparing this "Logic of Vegetarianism" for a new edition, I have carefully re-read a sheaf of press opinions which greeted the first appearance of the book some seven years ago, with the hope of profiting by any adverse criticism which might point out arguments that I had overlooked.

In this, however, I have been disappointed, for, apart from a few such objections as that raised in all seriousness by the _Spectator_—that I had not done justice to the great problem of what would become of the Esquimaux—the only definite complaint which I can find is that the representatives of flesh-eating whom I have introduced in the dialogues are deliberately made to talk nonsense.

"It is easy," said one critic, "to confute an opponent if you have the selection of the arguments and the framing of the replies."

I ought not, perhaps, to have expected that the assurance given in my introductory chapter (p. 2) as to the authenticity of the anti-vegetarian pleadings would shield me from this charge; indeed, the _Vegetarian Messenger_, in a friendly review of the book, expressed doubt as to the policy of using dialogue at all, because, as it remarked, "the arguments against vegetarianism are often so silly that it looks as if the author had set up a man of straw in order to demolish him."

Yet, as the _Messenger_ itself added, "there is not an argument against vegetarianism quoted in this volume which we have not, time after time, seen seriously brought forward by our opponents."

Surely it would be a strange thing if food reformers had to avoid any terse presentment of their adversaries' reasoning for the very fact of its imbecility!

And there is this further question.

If I have failed to include in my selection the effective arguments against vegetarianism, where and what are they?

Looking through those cited in the press notices, I can discover none that seem to be formidable; but rather than again be suspected of unfair suppression, let me frankly quote the following specimens of the beef-eater's philosophy: "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

It is the special purpose of this book to set forth in a clear and rational manner the logic of vegetarianism.

To the ethical, the scientific, and the economic aspects of the system much attention has already been given by well-accredited writers, but there has not as yet been any organised effort to present the _logical_ view—that is, the dialectical scope of the arguments, offensive and defensive, on which the case for vegetarianism is founded.

I am aware that mere logic is not in itself a matter of first-rate importance, and that a great humane principal, based on true natural instinct, will in the long-run have fulfilment, whatever wordy battles may rage around it for a time;

nevertheless, there is no better method of hastening that result than to set the issues before the public in a plain and unmistakable light.

I

wish, therefore, in this work, to show what vegetarianism is, and (a scarcely less essential point) what vegetarianism is _not_.

For though, owing to the propaganda carried on for the last fifty years, there has been an increasing talk of vegetarianism, and a considerable discussion of its doctrines, there are still very numerous misunderstandings of its real aims and meaning.

In this, as in other phases of the great progressive movement of which vegetarianism is a part, to give expression to a new idea is to excite a host of blind and angry prejudices.

The champions of the old are too disdainful to take counsel with the champions of the new; hence they commonly attribute to them designs quite different from those which they really entertain, and unconsciously set up a straw man for the pleasure of pummelling him with criticism.

Devoid always of a sense of sympathy, and mostly of a sense of humour, they absurdly exaggerate the least vital points in their adversaries' reasoning, while they often fail to note what is the very core of the controversy.

It is therefore of great concern to vegetarianism that its case should be so stated as to preclude all possibility of doubt as to the real issues involved.

If agreement is beyond our reach, let us at least ascertain the precise point of our disagreement.

With a view to this result, it will be convenient to have recourse now and then to the form of dialogue, so as to bring into sharper contrast the _pros_ and _cons_ of the argument.

Nor will these conversations be altogether imaginary, for, to avoid any suspicion of burlesquing the counter-case of our opponents by a fanciful presentment, I shall introduce only such objections to vegetarianism as have actually been insisted on—the stock-objections, in fact, which crop up again and again in all colloquies on food reform—with sometimes the very words of the flesh-eating disputant.

It is not my fault if some of these objections appear to be foolish.

I have often marvelled at the reckless way in which those who would combat new and unfamiliar notions step forth to the encounter, unprovided with intellectual safeguards, and trusting wholly to certain ancient generic fallacies, which, if we may judge from their appearance in all ages and climates, are indigenous in the human mind.

Many of the difficulties which the flesh-eater to-day propounds to the vegetarian are the same, _mutatis mutandis_, as those which have at various times been cast in the teeth of the reformer by the apologists of every cruel and iniquitous custom, from slave-holding to the suttee.

To show the unreality of these sophisms, by clearing away the misconceptions upon which they rest, and to state the creed of vegetarianism as preached and practised by its friends rather than as misapprehended by its foes—such is the object of this work.

To make "conversions," in the ordinary sense, is not my concern.

What we have to do is to discover who are flesh-eaters by ingrained conviction, and who by thoughtlessness and ignorance, and to bring over to our side from the latter class those who are naturally allied to us, though by accident ranged in opposition.

And this, once more, can only be done by making the issues unmistakable.

Incidentally, I hope these pages may suggest to our antagonists that vegetarians, perhaps, are not the weak brainless sentimentalists that they are so often depicted.

It is, to say the least of it, entertaining when a critic who has just been inquiring (for example) "what would become of the animals" if mankind were to desist from eating them, goes on to remark of vegetarians that "their hearts are better than their heads."

Alas, we cannot truthfully return the compliment by saying of such a philosopher that his head is better than his heart!

It cannot be too strongly stated that the appeal of vegetarianism, as of all humane systems, is not to heart alone, nor to brain alone, but to brain and heart combined, and that if its claims fail to win this double judgment they are necessarily void and invalid.

The test of logic, no less than the test of feeling, is deliberately challenged by us; for it is only by those who can think as well as feel, and feel as well as think, that the diet question, or indeed any great social question, can ever be brought to its solution.