ON ABSTINENCE

05
ii A

...carry [justice] original: "eo usque prouehamus" so far that it is judged to pertain not only to rational beings, but even to irrational ones; so that we might think not only humans and gods have a claim upon us, but even the other brute animals, with whom we have no interaction original: "commercium", referring here to a legal or social contract. Nor should we use some for labor and others for food, judging them to be entirely foreign and devoid of all society, no different than if they were outside the human republic. For whoever wishes to behave toward them just as toward humans—sparing them and doing them no harm—while he assigns to justice: the principle of giving each their due that which it cannot bear, he destroys that which it can; and by the introduction of what is foreign [to justice], he takes away and ruins what is proper to it.

The result is that either, if we do not spare them, we must necessarily act unjustly; or, if we do spare them and refuse to use them, we will be unable to carry on with our lives. In the end, we would lead the lives of cattle original: "pecudum" ourselves, if we were to repudiate the use of cattle.

For even if I omit the infinite multitude of Nomads: wandering tribes who did not practice agriculture and Troglodytes: literally "cave-dwellers," a term used by ancient Greeks to describe various remote peoples who recognize no other nourishment but meat—for us, who seem to live gently and humanely, what work of the earth, what work of the sea, what notable art, what ornament of our livelihood would be left to us if we were so affected toward other animals as if they were our relatives, and behaved toward them harmlessly and piously? Truly, there would be no remedy for such poverty, which [destroys] all life and just-