Animal Rights History » Thomas Taylor

» A Vindication of the Rights of Brutes "That In Consequence of Brutes Possessing Reason, We Ought to Abstain from Animal Food And This Was the Practice of the Most Ancient Greeks"

[Thomas Taylor], A Vindication of the Rights of Brutes (London, 1792; Gainesville, Florida: Scholars' Facsimiles & Reprints, 1966; Online at Animal Rights History, 2003).

Chap. III

That in consequence of Brutes possessing Reason, we ought to abstain from Animal Food;—and that this was the Practice of the most ancient Greeks.

THUS far Porphyry, from whose perfectly convincing arguments is evidently follows, that it is equally unjust and tyrannical to destroy and eat brutes, as they are erroneously called, as it would be to sacrifice our own species for the same impious and intemperate purposes; since in either case, we injure our kindred and allies. Besides, as he well observes in another place, he who loves all animals in general, will have no particular hatred for any individual; but by how much the more he cultivates justice, towards the whole animal kind, by so much the more will his equity be extended towards that part of the species, which is more nearly allied to his own. Hence he who uses all animals with kindness and familiarly, will not injure this or that in particular; but he who circumscribes justice, within the narrow limits of the human race, is ever ready, like one placed in a difficult situation, to relax the reins of injustice, and hasten into the dangerous paths of iniquity. On which account the banquet of Pythagoras, is much more pleasant and desirable, than that of Socrates: for the latter of these affirmed, that hunger was the sauce of food; but Pythagoras asserted, that to injure no one, and to act justly, was the sweetest of all banquets.

But that this abstinence from animal food, which is here so warmly recommended, was actually adopted by the most ancient nations, is evident in the first place from the conduct of the primitive Greeks, as related by Porphyry, in the Forth Book of his above-mentioned Treatise, and which was as follows:

"Dicæarchus the Peripatetic (says he) in his History of the ancient Manner of Living among the Greeks, relates, that the ancients immediately originating from the gods, were endued with the most excellent natures, and led the most exalted lives; so that compared with us, who spring from an adulterated and base master, they are denominated the golden age; and these men (says he) destroyed no animal nature. But the truth of this is evinced by the poets, who call this first age of mankind golden, and relate that every good was present to the inhabitants of this happy period. For according to Hesiod:

"Then earth spontaneous on her bosom bore,
Of various herbs and fruity, a plenteous store;
In peaceful works, then men remote from strife,
And blest with virtuous friendship pass'd thro' life. "

Which verse Dicæarchus explaining, affirms that a life of this kind was under the government of Saturn; since it is proper to believe that this period was in reality such, and was not alone celebrated in empty fables, but subsisted agreeable to the description of the poet, and ought therefore to be referred to some cause consonant to reason, and the nature of things.

Every thing was indeed spontaneously produced, for mankind as yet ignorant of agriculture, and of every other art, prepared none of the necessaries of life. This too was the reason why they enjoyed the greatest repose, and passed through life free from labour and care; and if we may acquiesce in the reasonings the most knowing and most elegant of physicians, they were not infested with any disease. For they found that nothing was more conducive to the preservation of health than refraining from a useless abundance of nutriment, from which they always preserved their bodies perfectly pure. Hence they did not make use of food exceeding the strength, but such as was easily subject to the dominion of their nature; and never assumed nutriment beyond mediocrity through the abundance of provisions, but frequently less than what was sufficient through the scarcity of supply. They were perfect strangers to wars and seditions, since no reward worthy of contest was ever proposed to them, for the sake of which they wished to commit themselves to such great and dangerous dissentions. So that repose and quiet from the molestations produced by the preparation of necessaries, together with health, peace, and friendship, were the principal results of such a life, But afterwards the offspring of this happy period, from indulging in the desire of abundance, and from extending their possessions, which produced a multiplicity of evils, rendered the former mode of existence truly desirable to succeeding generations. But the slender and spontaneous nutriment of this primitive age is sufficiently indicated by the adage which was afterwards in use, [Greek Omitted], enough of the oak; a proverb most probably usurped by those who engaged the former mode of subsistence. After this, a pastoral life succeeded, in which mankind extended their possessions, and subjected animals to their dominion. But perceiving that some of these were innoxious, and others malevolent and destructive, they tamed some, and contended with others. For war arose together with this altered institution of life, which we do not affirm upon our own authority, but from the testimony of those who have complied a variety of authentic particulars from historical traditions.

And not in this subordinate age, such things as were in any estimation became the riches of mankind, which some ambitiously endeavoured to seize, provoking one another for this purpose; while others endeavoured to defend them with equal zeal and opposition. So that by gradual advances, mankind always regarding what appeared useful, passed into the third kind of life, in which the business of agriculture became the principal object of general attention. And thus far Dicæarchus proceeds in relating the ancient manners of the Greeks, and the blessed life enjoyed by the most remote antiquity, to the possession of which abstinence from animals afforded no small contribution. Hence no wars nor tumults flourished at his time, because all injustice was exiled. But afterwards, together with the perpetration of injuries towards animals, war and fraudulent conduct mutually arose. So that the audacity of those men is wonderful, who are not ashamed to call abstinence from animals the mother of injustice, since it appears from the credit which is due to history and experience, that war, luxury and injustice, invade the earth together with animal slaughter."