VEGETARIANISM 589 



body on food other than flesh and difficult to clothe the human feet with- 

 out leather can have no bearing on the ethics or logic of the question. 

 If man has the right to kill animals for his use, what is to constitute 

 necessary use will always remain a matter of more or less individual 

 judgment, as the movement for the protection of bird-life clearly illus- 

 trates. An aigrette may seem more necessary to the woman of fashion 

 than are leather shoes to her less evolved peasant sister. From this 

 point of consistency therefore no departure can be permitted. Here the 

 consistent vegetarian and the consistent anti-vivisectionist meet, both 

 resting the ultimate argument upon the broad proposition that man has 

 not the right to nourish himself, clothe himself or save his life at the ex- 

 pense of the life of an animal. On the other hand, consistency does not 

 demand of the ethical vegetarian, as of the physiological vegetarian, 

 the exclusion of milk, cheese, butter and eggs from the diet. Although 

 the slaughter of animals is from the ethical point of view condemned, 

 the domestication of animals for their service is not excluded, since it 

 can be easily shown that domestication yields to animals security from 

 beasts of ~pvey, protection from the elements and provision for food 

 beyond the natural expectations, thus tending to prolong life as well as 

 to promote the well-being of the animals. The ethical vegetarian is not 

 concerned with physiological opinions bearing on the healthfulness of 

 plant as against animal albumin, just as the consistent anti-vivisection- 

 ist is not concerned with the question whether vivisection has resulted 

 in knowledge that leads to the alleviation of human suffering, the cure 

 of human disease and the prolongation of human life; even though 

 animal flesh be the most healthful of foods, even though vivisection 

 lead to the cure of human disease, man has no right to these at the cost 

 of animal life. 



When now we turn to the modern science of nutrition, and ask the 

 question : Is a vegetarian diet physiologically correct, adapted to the best 

 purposes of a normal life, capable of sustaining the highest standards of 

 growth, health, endurance and longevity? We receive a reply couched 

 in no uncertain terms. Yes, a properly selected and prepared vege- 

 tarian diet meets completely the highest requirements of a diet. The 

 technical reply to the question, stated in untechnical terms, would yield 

 something like the following elucidation of the dynamics of nutrition. 

 The three main classes of foodstuffs are sugars (including starches), 

 fats and albumins, using the last word to correspond to what the 

 physiologist terms protein. Since the fats and sugars, whose role is 

 largely that of fuel, are interchangeable to a large extent, and since the 

 vegetable fats are in every respect equivalent to the animal fats, the 

 question of the adaptability of a vegetarian diet resolves itself into the 

 concrete question whether plant albumin is the equivalent of animal 

 albumin as tissue-builder. The chemical investigations into the con- 



