'Food for all our futures'
Heriot Watt University, Edinburgh, Scotland
July 8-14, 2002
The Vegetarian Society
of the United Kingdom
| International Vegetarian Union (IVU) | ||
|
35th World Vegetarian Congress 'Food for all our futures' Heriot Watt University, Edinburgh, Scotland July 8-14, 2002 |
Hosted by The Vegetarian Society of the United Kingdom |
|
|
|
Philosophy of diet - or philosophy of life? by Derek Antrobus, tuesday 10.00am-11.00am |
|
In the British House of Commons a few years, the most prominent of all left-wing radicals was Tony Benn. One of the most colourful right wing conservatives was the late Alan Clark. Both were vegetarians. That simple observation might lead one to conclude that adopting a vegetarian diet was independent of some wider philosophy of life. Yet my researches have suggested that there are deep ideological undercurrents that have persisted in (at least) the principal proponents of vegetarianism and that this has led to a tendency in vegetarians to adopt similar attitudes to issues beyond that of diet alone. In my book, A Guiltless Feast, I theorise that there are two great contending
traditions of human thought: the holistic and the anthropocentric. By
the holistic tradition, I understand a fundamental belief that human beings
are an integral part of nature. They are caught in a web relationships,
well understood by modern ecologists: what happens to one part of nature
has an impact on another. Ecology assumes a biological relationship. But
in the past, the holistic tradition has suggests other bases for the relationship.
Much of paganism is founded on a magical relationship between human beings
and the natural world. Many religions are founded on mysticism, a belief
in direct communion with a God which is the unit of all things. My argument
is that, whatever, the basis of holistic beliefs, they lead to certain
philosophical attitudes: a reverence for all life and a profound egalitarianism. I want to consider the evidence for this theory in the hope of provoking
a debate which might suggest alternative frameworks. We must also be alert
to the argument that we cannot make such sweeping generalisations and
need to focus on the particular philosophies of particular individuals. Pythagoras We may as well begin by looking at Pythagoras who is generally acknowledged to be the father of Western vegetarianism. Indeed, until the nineteenth century, vegetarians were known as Pythagoreans. He lived about 2,600 years ago and was born into a society where holistic ideas were dominant. For Greeks before the time of Socrates believed that the world was a living organism which unified all life. Pythagoras developed a view about the transmigration of souls: the belief that on death the soul migrates to the body of another living creature. Pythagoras is famously said to have warned a follower not to eat an animal lest it be his grandmother! For Pythagoreans, all souls spring from the same source and inhabit every living thing. It follows from this that all living things are related and there is literally a kinship of nature. Pythagoras and his followers set up institutions throughout the Mediterranean
which promoted education, were egalitarian and, it seems, offered an emancipated
role for women. Many Pythagorean communities were suppressed - it has
been suggested that this was due to their political radicalism. But from
about 300BC the philosophy underwent a resurgence. Among the famous adherents
were the Roman poet Ovid and Porphyry, whose On Abstinence from Animal
Food, published in the third century, is the classic statement of Pythagorean
attitudes to vegetarianism. In Pythagorean philosophy, then, we see a link between a notion of kinship
in nature, vegetarianism and radical social ideals. Thomas Tryon Let me now move on to a more recent example, that of Thomas Tryon, the
earliest English propagandist for vegetarianism, who lived from 1634 to
1703. Tryon's religious beliefs were influenced by the German mystic Jacob
Behmen (1575-1624) who rejected the notion of God as a bearded deity in
the clouds. For Behmen, God existed in and worked through nature. Trees
and flowers were sufficient evidence for nature of God: you did not need
to have a Bible interpreted by a priest. Behmen's nature mysticism was
popular among anti-clerical Puritans in Cromwell's time. Mysticism is
a belief in direct communion with God which Behemenists experienced through
the natural world. In doing so, they rejected the hierarchy of the church
and privileged the equality of human souls. Tryon developed his vegetarian ideals from this belief in the kinship
of nature. But he also developed from this egalitarian political views.
He was one of the earliest opponents of slavery, he lobbied for the establishment
of free schools for the poor and was a pacifist. Among those converted
by Tryon's writings was Benjamin Franklin. Emanuel Swedenborg My final example of the existence of these links is the Swedish mystic,
Emanuel Swedenborg, or, more accurately, his followers who established
the Vegetarian Society. Swedenborg, who lived from 1688 to 1772, believed
in the underlying unity of life: all were one in God, God was Love, wherever
there was love, there was God. To teach this Gospel of Love, he established
a church - the New Church - which counted amongst its members the poet
and artist William Blake. The Bible Christians were pacifists and helped to organise the Peace
Society; they opposed capital punishment and their leader Joseph Brotherton
is said to have been the first Parliamentarian to argue against the death
penalty; they campaigned against slavery; lobbied for laws to improve
the conditions of the Victorian working class; and influenced the local
and national political agenda to extend culture and education. In other
words, they were radical in their egalitarianism. Aristotle The most influential philosopher in this respect was Aristotle. He argued
that since animals do not possess reason, they are subject to humans.
It follows that there is a hierarchy in nature. Animals eat plants, so
animals are superior to plants. Humans eat animals, and so are superior
to them. Aristotle takes the argument a crucial step further. If humans
eat animals, then animals must be designed for eating. It is the intention
of nature, the gods, the Supreme Power that humans should eat animals.
In Aristotle's world view, there is a belief in a hierarchy which leads
him to adopt authoritarian views in politics. But there is also the argument
from design: if that's the way things are, that's how they are meant to
be. Not only is this profoundly conservative but, when linked to authoritarianism,
it is totalitarian. The authorities know what should be and they will
enforce it. And this is the central message of his political writings. The Church Aristotle was the philosopher beloved of the Church. His teachings fused
with those of the Judaic tradition's emphasis on the immortality of the
soul to create a profoundly human-centred religion. God had given humans
dominion over the rest of nature. There was a natural hierarchy in the
universe, the nation developed of a chain of being. At the top was the
Trinity, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in that order. The chain of being
not only justified and sanctified human dominion over animals, but royal
dominion over subject through the theory of the Divine Right of Kings.
Access to God was through the priesthood. In this view, the church was a hierarchy which justified the hierarchical organisation of society. It monopolised power, it monopolised knowledge and learning; and it monopolised the fate of souls. It had a track record of declaring heretical anyone who challenged that monopoly, notably the vegetarian sects which flourished from time to time. From this analysis it would seem we could argue that vegetarians are,
on the whole, egalitarian, libertarian reformers whereas meat-eaters are
selfish, authoritarian, totalitarian and exploitative. But, of course,
that does not entirely ring true. Aristotle's genius led him to some abhorrent prescriptions for conduct
and society. But Christians have drawn on a variety of traditions. It
is true that many have interpreted the Bible's promise of dominion over
nature as carte-blanche to exploit nature. But others have interpreted
that responsibility as a requirement of stewardship, to conserve and care
for the natural world. Others see it as duty to exercise dominion as a
power for good, to make perfect this imperfect world. This has been particularly
true of unitarian tradition in Christianity which rejects the hierarchy
of the Trinity and opens the way for the holistic ideas which have had
such an influence on vegetarians. Nor must we blind to the fact that not all vegetarians have an ethical
stance on animals. Some forsake meat not because of its impact on the
slaughtered victim, but it impact on personal health. Others adopt vegetarianism
because its is cheaper for them - or they see it as cheaper for society,
helping to avoid famine. Many vegetarians argue that meat-eating leads
to aggression. All these reason focus on the benefits to humans, individual
or collectively. They can thus be seen as anthropocentric. |