A Plea for Vegetarianism and Other Essays/Chapter 7
ON CERTAIN FALLACIES.
THE object of this paper is to meet some of the stock arguments that are most commonly advanced by the opponents of Food Reform, and to prove in each case that for those who are once convinced of the desirability of a vegetarian diet, there is no insuperable difficulty in carrying their wishes into practical effect. In nine cases out of ten it will be found that these objections to Vegetarianism are based on no solid and rational grounds, but rather on certain prejudices which have taken deep root in the British mind, and are in one form or another continually reappearing. I am aware that in refuting these time-honoured fallacies, I am only going over ground which has already been repeatedly traversed. But as long as our opponents persist in advancing the same arguments, we Vegetarians may be pardoned for reproducing the same replies.
1. “The Teeth” One of the first objections by which flesh-eaters attempt to throw discredit on Food Reform, is the statement that the impossibility of a vegetarian diet is demonstrated by the formation of the teeth and other structural evidence. “ Comparative anatomy," they say, “ shows distinctly that the human teeth and intestines are constructed with a view to the digestion of flesh, and not of vegetables.” The answer to this very fallacious assertion is simply a denial in toto. Flesh-caters are utterly mistaken in the assertion they rashly make, and if they will examine their authorities more carefully, they will discover that the comparative anatomy to which they appeal establishes beyond any doubt the frugivosrous, not carnivorous, origin of man. “The natural food of man,” says Cuvier, “judging from his structure, appears to consist principally of the fruits, roots, and other succulent parts of vegetables.” This opinion is corroborated by that of Linnzeus, M. Gasscndi, Ray, Professor Owen, Professor Lawrence, and a host of other authorities; but even without any scientific testimony, the fact that the apes, who are nearest akin to us in the animal world, are frugivorous, is a somewhat strong indication that flesh is not the natural food of mankind.
2. Our opponents next take refuge in the very specious fallacy that “Vegetarianism is impossible in cold climates." We are reminded that our climate is not a tropical one ; that Vegetarianism may be all very well in warm and sunny regions, but that in this land of cold and mist “the roast beef of old England” alone can cheer and support us. We reply that actual experience shows this to be erroneous. Those who have conscientiously made a trial of vegetarian diet have not found climatic influences the smallest obstacle in their path. An English winter is undoubtedly depressing, but it is not more so because one’s food is pure.
3. The baffled advocate of flesh-eating now changes his ground, and adopts a high moral tone, pointing out at the same time some incidental difficulties and drawbacks of Food Reform. “Vegetarianism involves too much thinking about one’s food.” Hard-working men often seem to think there is a sort of merit in “not caring what one eats.” This is a fallacy ; for though it is meritorious to be able to content oneself with plain fare, yet mere indifference about one’s food can only arise from stupidity or thoughtlessness, since the welfare of mind and body is intimately connected with what we eat. But is it true that a vegetarian diet involves excessive thinking about one’s food? A change of diet undoubtedly necessitates some temporary consideration ; new recipes have to be found. and substitutes for “meat” must be tried; but this is not an inherent or perpetual characteristic of a vegetarian regime, which, when once fairly started, is far simpler and less troublesome than the system of flesh-eating. If Vegetarianism had existed as a national custom for some centuries, and flesh-food were now being introduced as a novelty, precisely the same objection might be urged on the other side ; it would then be the flesh-eater who would be obliged to hunt out recipes and “think about his food.” And he would have a much less pleasant subject to think about.
4. “Vegetarianism is a mere crotchet.” This is a statement which often does much injury to the cause of Food Reform, by representing it as a fanciful whim, amiable enough and praiseworthy in intention, but undeserving of the consideration of practical men. When there is so much real work to be done in this world, it is childish—so argues the earnest and philanthropic flesh-eater—to waste time on theories which are the mere dreams of humanitarian sentimentalists and fanatical crotchet-mongers. This is an argument which, in the mouth of an unscrupulous opponent, is always sure of a considerable amount of success ; for there is no charge of which Englishmen stand in such mortal and unreasoning terror as the very vague accusation of “sentimentalism.” Men who are naturally gentle and kind-hearted, will obstinately close their ears to anything which can expose them to the least suspicion of “sentiment,” and will sanction any cruelty rather than run the risk of being ridiculed as “humanitarians.” Again, there is a natural disinclination among honest and hard-working men to attend to any new doctrines or speculations which may distract their thoughts from the leading object of their lives, and this disinclination is strengthened tenfold when they are told that the theories in question are visionary and unpractical. Now this is exactly what is constantly being asserted by the opponents of all reforms, not least of Food Reform. Yet, how can Vegetarianism be truthfully described as a mere craze and oddity? It can hardly be denied that it is practicable ; for it is seen to be practised by many who owe to it increased health and happiness. Its indubitable economy cannot wisely be disregarded in a country where poverty is as prevalent as in ours. If we are not blinded by prejudice and custom, we should see that the most truly practical man is he who can live most simply, healthily, and contentedly ; while the term “crotchet-monger” is to none more fitly applicable than to him who fondly imagines that he cannot live a useful life without costly and unnecessary food. But, alas ! this is one of the commonest of all fallacies, to make ourselves believe that those people are “unpractical” who advocate a course of life which we ourselves do not wish to practise.
5. “We ought to eat meat for the sake of others” Selfishness is the next crime with which the Vegetarian is charged. His relatives are anxious about him, for he is delicate by nature, and the doctor has been heard to mutter words of ominous import ; the neighbours are beginning to talk ; the servants, too, are puzzled and annoyed ; the cook grumbles at having to prepare new dishes, and the butcher’s tenderest feelings are shocked and violated. Would it not be far nobler and more unselfish on the part of the author of all this trouble, if he would set aside his own personal feelings, and eat meat for the sake of others? This, which may be termed “the family fallacy,” is of much the same nature as the last, the only difference being that there it was the fear of sentimentalism, here it is the fear of selfishness that is used as a powerful lever to warp the reasoning powers of the unwary. The fallacy lies in representing Vegetarianism as a mere idle whim and personal predilection, such as it would indeed be selfish to practise, where it caused trouble or anxiety to others. But all true Food Reformers know that it is much more than this: a man who has once understood the full meaning and value of Food Reform cannot return to a flesh-diet, for any motive, however specious, without wronging and ruining the whole spirit of his life. In a case Where one feels as strongly as this, it is no question of selfishness or unselfishness ; it is a sheer absurdity for a man to give up what he feels to be true and right. No person in the world is justified in demanding such a sacrifice as this, and no Vegetarian is justified in granting it if demanded.
6. “What should with do without leather?” is perhaps the commonest of a host of questions of a similar kind, the object of which is to Show to what desperate straits civilised men would be reduced, if they were deprived of the use of animal substances. Jocose flesh-eaters take a malicious delight in pointing out and enumerating to Vegetarians the many animal substances now in common use, and in taunting them with inconsistency in using them. The consistent Food Reformer, they say, must abjure boots and leather in all its forms; he must not even be drawn by a vehicle where the harness is of leather. His books must not be bound in calf ; seal-skin and all furs must be banished from his household. Bone, too, must be prohibited ; and he must bethink him of some substitute even for soap and candles. All this is amusing enough, but the answer to it is of the simplest and most conclusive kind. The difficulties mentioned are only temporary and incidental, and are merely owing to the fact that the abundance of animal substance from the carcases of slaughtered beasts has naturally been used to supply our wants, to the exclusion of other material. When once the supply of carcases began to diminish, invention would soon be busy, and the wants of man would be equally well supplied from other sources. This process would, of course, be a gradual one, keeping pace exactly with the gradual change from a diet of animal to vegetable food: at no period would there be the smallest confusion or inconvenience to anybody. In the meantime, Vegetarians need not seriously trouble themselves with the foolish charge of “inconsistency.” They use leather, etc., now, not from any personal preference for such substances, but because, owing to the unpleasant dietetic habits of other people, it so happens that they can at present get nothing else. It is important, however, for Food Reformers to feel sure that the adoption of their principles would cause no real and permanent deficiencies in the appliances of civilised life ; and on this point I think they may feel easy. We hear of many trivial and hardly serious objections, but I do not think any really necessary or important animal production can be mentioned for which as good a substitute could not easily be supplied from the vegetable or mineral kingdom. It may afford some pleasant mental exercise to our carnivorous friends to tax their ingenuity on this point.
7. And now we come to two of the most amusing and characteristic arguments of our opponents. Finding that direct attacks on Vegetarianism are by no means unanswerable, and that the difficulties of that system are not so insuperable as has been fondly supposed, they have recourse to what may be considered a most ingenious after-thought. They are suddenly filled with profound concern for the true interests of the animals themselves ! “What would become of the animals ?” is a question to which these humane and unselfish disputants invite our serious attention. If they were not killed for food. would they not soon run wild in great numbers, and be reduced to a grievous state through famine and bodily ill-condition? Would they not lie dying in great numbers by a slow and painful death, instead of being quickly and mercifully despatched by the hands of the butcher ?
It is almost incredible that any reasoning person should ask such questions as these ; yet the fact that they are repeatedly asked must be my excuse for spending a few moments in answering them. Some persons are unaware, or affect to be unaware, that even under the present system the increase of domestic animals is not left free and unrestricted ; that the cook makes known her demands to the butcher, the butcher in his turn applies to the cattle-breeder, and animals are bred and supplied precisely in proportion to this demand. If Vegetarianism ever became general, only such animals would be bred, and only in such limited numbers as would then be required for the service of men ; as, for instance, sheep for their wool, and horses for their value as beasts of burden. This change would, of course, be a gradual one: the demand for other cattle would not cease suddenly, nor would cattle-breeders be ruined by finding their occupation suddenly gone. Nor need we fear that any animals would eventually be left unprovided for on our hands; for there would undoubtedly be some loyal and conservative flesh-eaters, who, faithful to the end, would perform the useful task of eating up any otherwise superfluous oxen and swine. Horses are not at present usually killed for the sake of their flesh ; yet it is not found that they run wild in great numbers, or lie dying about our fields. Donkeys are not used for human food; yet it is, proverbially, a rare thing to see a dead donkey. So, too, would it be under a Vegetarian regime. Animals would be bred only in such numbers as were actually required. When they were worn out by old age or disease, they would, if incurable, be mercifully killed and buried.
8. “Ah,” says some more profound and metaphysical flesh-eater, “but observe that in thus diminishing the number of animals that are born into the world, you are also diminishing the sum of animal happiness. At present a large number of animals live a happy life, and die a speedy death, and the balance of pleasure must be surely in their favour. It is better for the animals themselves to live and to be killed, than not to live at all.”
Such reasoning, if accepted as a justification of flesh-eating, must also justify vivisection or any torture whatever. A vivisector who breeds rabbits for that purpose, might argue that it is better for the rabbits to live a year and be tortured an hour than not to live at all. The humane flesh-eater may be shocked, but if he will examine the argument he will find it precisely identical with his own. This may lead us to suspect the validity of such reasoning, yet it is so frequently advanced by persons of considerable intelligence and education that it deserves to be carefully examined and refuted. Its fallacy arises from a confusion of ideas about “life,” as compared with previous existence or non-existence.
Now, animals either exist or do not exist before the commencement of “ life." If they do exist, this ante-natal condition may, for all we know, be a happier state than “life,” and it is therefore absurd to assert that we do animals a kindness in breeding them. On the other hand, if we assume, as seems most probable, that they do not exist before birth, how can the transition from non-existence to existence be shown to be an advantage? That which is non-existent is alike beyond the reach of pleasure or pain, and the terms “good” “bad,” “better,” “worse,” can only apply to that which is already existent. Of the non-existent we can predicate just this—nothing. To say, therefore. that we have done a kindness to our born flocks in giving them life, is as sheer and utter nonsense as to say that we have done an unkindness to our unborn flocks, in not making Special arrangements for their birth! Or, in other words, a man brings more happiness into the world, in exact proportion as he eats more flesh-meat and enlarges the trade of the butcher and cattle-breeder. If we all resolve to eat twice as much mutton, there will be twice as many sheep, and the beneficent flesh-eater will observe with complacent self-satisfaction twice as much {risking happiness among the lambs in spring-time !
The fact is that the duty of kindness and gentleness to the lower animals begins only at the time of their births and ends only at their death, nor can it be evaded by any references to ante-natal existence or non-existence. Such devices are only an after-thought by which flesh-eaters try to escape the responsibility of their own acts. It may or may not be better for mankind, that animals should be bred and slaughtered for food : it certainly is not better for the animals themselves.
9. Next we come to what is sometimes described as the great justification of flesh-eating, the argument drawn from nature. Flesh-eating, it is said, cannot be immoral, because it is part of the great natural system whereby the economy of the world is regulated and preserved. The flesh-eater triumphantly quotes Tennyson’s lines in “Maud":— “For Nature is one with rapine, a harm no preacher can heal,
The May-fly is torn by the swallow, the sparrow is speared by the Shrike,
And the whole little wood where I sit is a world of plunder and prey."
This being so, “is it right,” asks our pious and scrupulous friend “to refuse to conform to the dictates of Nature ?”
The fallacy here consists in advancing as a binding and universal law of Nature that which is in reality only a special and partial one. It is true that some animals are carnivorous ; if a cat were to refuse a mouse, her conduct might conceivably be argued to be unnatural, and, therefore, immoral. But it is equally true that other animals are not carnivorous ; we are not so unreasonable as to expect a horse to eat rats and mice—why, then, should it be unnatural or ungrateful in a man to decline to prey upon the lower animals? The flesh-eater must prove that man is actually a carnivorous rather than a frugivorous being; and this, we imagine, would be rather a difficult task.
The absurd assertion so often made, that animals were “sent” us as food may be classed under this same head. The mere fact that we have been accustomed to eat flesh-food, no more proves that animals were created for this purpose than the existence of cannibalism proves that missionaries are “sent” to the South Sea Islands solely as an article of food, or the existence of slavery that black men were “sent” to be the slaves of white. In barbarous times cruel practices are originated, and afterwards are confirmed by centuries of habit, till at last, when humanity raises a protest against them, men are so blinded by custom as to attribute to God or nature that which is in reality only the result of their own vice and degradation.
10. The fallacy derived from “the necessity of taking life.” Many people seem to think it a sufficient refutation of Vegetarian principles to point out that it is absolutely necessary in some cases to take the lives of animals. They delight in showing that we are obliged to kill wild animals, to keep down vermin, and to destroy domestic animals when old and diseased : or that we incidentally take life even in such innocent acts as cooking a cabbage or drinking a glass of water. The fallacy consists partly in wrongly assuming that the object of Vegetarianism is “not to take any life ;” whereas it is really “not to take life unnecessarily” (the last word, conveniently omitted by our opponents, containing, in fact. the whole essence of the Vegetarian creed), and partly in the strange idea that because it is sometimes necessary to take life, it must be always allowable. Vegetarians are not so Foolish as to deny the necessity of sometimes destroying animals, both intentionally and by accident; but that is no reason for killing more animals than is really necessary, but rather the reverse.[1] It is quite true that we must in self-defence keep down vermin ; but it does not follow that it is advisable to eat their carcases. It is quite true that we cannot avoid accidentally taking life; but that can scarcely justify us in purposely breeding animals for the slaughter-house. To assert that because we accidentally tread on a beetle, we are justified in deliberately slaughtering an ox ; or that because we chance to swallow a fly, we are right in bleeding a calf to death and enjoying our veal, is an argument which must equally justify homicide and murder of every description. A murderer might argue, in like manner, that he found he was always treading on spiders, and therefore it was obviously necessary “to take life.”
11. “The Scriptural argument.” I have often been met by the remark that any system which condemns flesh-eating must be wrong, because it was sanctioned by the usages of the Jews, and is mentioned without disapproval in the New Testament. Having no wish to enter on any religious controversy, I will very briefly state why I consider such reasoning fallacious. It is only in late ages that Vegetarianism has been seriously studied and adopted as a principle ; only lately has its deeper import been widely and systematically recognised. It follows, therefore, that it is unreasonable to look to the New Testament for teaching on this subject, which was quite unknown to the Jews of that day, and was reserved for the consideration of a future generation. Why need we fear to admit that morality, or rather the knowledge of morality, is progressive, and that which is allowable in one age is not necessarily so in another ? For instance, the habit of slavery was sanctioned in the Old Testament, and not condemned in the New ; yet it is not now denied that the abolition of slavery marked an advance in moral knowledge. So, too, it will be in the question of Food Reform.
I have now answered What appear to me to be the commonest of our adversaries’ arguments. Would-be Vegetarians are at first so often subjected to annoyance and molestation, owing to the kindly anxieties of friends and relatives, and the more officious advice of acquaintances, that it is well to be fore-armed in argument. The early career of a Vegetarian is indeed often a veritable “Pilgrim’s Progress.” He meets with no lack of such characters as Mistrust, Timorous, and Ignorance: Mr. Worldly Wiseman. the representative of Society, is always at hand with his plausible remonstrances: even the dreadful Apollyon himself, in the form of the family physician, occasionally bestrides the path of the bold adventurer, with his awful and solemn warning—“Prepare thyself to die.” But if the pilgrim presses boldly on his course, these early obstacles will rapidly vanish from his path ; even as Apollyon, when he felt the thrust of Christian's sword, “spread forth his dragon’s wings and sped him away.”
- ↑ “That there is pain and evil, is no rule
That I should make it greater, like a fool.”
Leigh Hunt