Moral and Philosophical history of Vegetarianism Essay Example For Students

Moral and Philosophical history of Vegetarianism Essay Vegetarianism is the theory or practice of living solely on vegetables, fruits, grains and nuts. It is practiced for moral, ascetic or nutritional reasons In Western society today meat in many different forms is readily and economically available, yet the current trend shows a growing number of voluntary vegetarians around the world. In the United States, roughly 3 to 4 percent of the total populations are considered vegetarian. The origins of modern day Vegetarian philosophy and its influences can be traced back nearly three thousand years. . Most vegetarians are people who have understood that to contribute towards a more peaceful society we must first solve the problem of violence in our own hearts. So its not surprising that thousands of people from all walks of life have, in their search for truth, become vegetarian. Many well known influential philosophers have both preached as well as practiced its inherent advantages. The earliest archeological data we have that suggest a voluntary partial vegetarian diet is the Old kingdom of Egypt. There are hieroglyphic inscriptions, which suggest the avoidance of eating some animals. The priests avoided eating pig for its lack of cleanliness, and cow for their belief that it was sacred mainly did this. This is believed to been practiced as early as 3000 BC. There are few historical sources on the practice of abstaining from meat in ancient Egypt, but we do know it directly influenced the beliefs held across the Mediterranean in Greece. Pythagoras was born off the coast of Turkey on the Island of Samos in the 6th century BC. He is most famous for his well-known proposition about right angle triangles, known as the Pythagorean theorem. Having spent time in Egypt and Babylon, much of his main philosophical teachings are a combination of ideas expressed in the places he traveled to. Pythagoras preached the soul as being abstract and immortal. A soul is within all living creatures, and therefore all creatures, man or beast deserve to be treated compassionately. The soul was said to pass between lives into different living creatures. Therefore in eating the flesh of an animal, one could be eating the flesh of a deceased cousin. This was somewhat revolutionary for a world in which religious ritual was centered on animal sacrifice. He also believed in the concept that an eternal world which was revealed to the intellect through continuous ascetic routines rather then the senses. For two hundred years following Pythagoras death a religion made up of followers of his teachings persisted. As a religious practice of it dissipated, but the teachings were responsible for influencing the likes of Plato and Socrates. Plato frequently makes reference to the migration of souls across species lines. This is in no way a proof that he himself was a Vegetarian, but it does show that one of western philosophies premier philosophers had a regard for animals with certain sensitivity. In Platos Republic, there is a documented dialogue between Socrates and his student Glaucon. Socrates points out that the eating of animals causes one state to go to war with the other. Cattle were considered great wealth, and states would fight with each other to obtain cattle. Meat was valued as such a luxury that men were willing to die for it. Socrates suggested that the consumption of cattle is somewhat gluttonous rather then of necessity. He suggests refraining from meat would lead to a world with less conflict and greater opportunity for peace. Another great Greek philosopher was Theophrastus. A contemporary of Aristotle, his writings clearly state that if plants and vegetables are abundant there is no need to eat meat. Theophrastus speculates that people only began to eat meat when crops were destroyed in war. harriet tubman EssayIn the modern philosophical era, Leo Tolstoy an influential Russian writer and philosopher was an advocate of vegetarianism. ? By killing man suppresses in himself, unnecessarily, the highest spiritual capacity-that of sympathy and pity towards living creatures like himself, and by violating his own feeling becomes so cruel.? (Letter to Mrs. C.P. Farrell)?A man can live and be healthy without killing animals for food; therefore, if he eats meat, he participates in taking animal life merely for the sake of his appetite. And to act so is immoral.? On Civil Disobedience Tolstoy has mentioned a new linguistic twist on to an ancient Eastern philosophy. Cruelty has been introduced. Many contemporary vegetarians today, will not eat meat because of its inherent cruelty and immorality. This is not as controversial as abortion or mercy killing yet, but it has become a moral issue on randomly selected issues. Tuna fish cans all over America are stamped with a ? Dolphin Safe? emblem. At first the consumer is comforted in thinking he has only sponsored the killing of a Tuna fish, but not the murder of a friendly littl e dolphin. This is an absurd statement. Why not save the Tuna? Why is the average consumer concerned with the life of a dolphin and not a Tuna- fish? I believe the case of the dolphins, is a first step towards a higher awareness of the immoral practice of carnivorous eating by humans. It took centuries for Democracy to develop, and it will take years for modern society as a whole to recognize the inherent cruelty in unnecessarily killing animals for food. Steps have been taken to make sure animals are stunned before slaughtered, but this is in no way a justification for killing them. ?I do not regard flesh-food as necessary for us at any stage and under any clime in which it is possible for human beings ordinarily to live. I hold flesh-food to be unsuited to our species. We err in copying the lower animal world if we are superior to it.? ? (Mahatma Gandhi, his Mission and Message)Gandhi, the first man to fight a large-scale war with non-violence was the worlds moral voice in the fi rst half of the twentieth century. He repeatedly spoke out against eating meat, maintaining that human beings have a greater moral standard then the rest of the animal kingdom and should act accordingly. I share the conviction with many earlier philosophers both ancient and modern, Eastern and Western that in the future the human race will reflect upon its meat eating practice remorsefully, and claim overcoming it as another step in the development of a humane species. . BibliographySources1) Spencer, Colin The Heretics Feast, A History of Vegetarianism. London: University Press of New England2) Dombrowski, Daniel A. The Philosophy of Vegetarianism. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. 3) Hill, John Lawrence The Case for Vegetarianism. Lanham, Maryland : Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc. Philosophy