Select Works of Porphyry

...I am indignant with you because, having been persuaded by certain cold and very corrupt arguments original: "sophisms"; these are clever but false arguments intended to deceive, you have deceived yourself and have tried to undermine a belief original: "dogma" that is both ancient and beloved by the Gods. Therefore, I felt it was necessary not only to show you our own opinion on this matter but also to gather and dismantle the arguments of our opponents. Their arguments are much stronger than those you mentioned—both in their number, their power, and their overall presentation. By doing this, I will demonstrate that the truth cannot be defeated even by those arguments that seem heavy and important, let alone by superficial fallacies.

For you are perhaps unaware that many philosophers are opposed to abstaining from animal food. This is the case with those of the Peripatetic and Stoic schools, and with most of the Epicureans. The Epicureans, in particular, have written in opposition to the philosophy of Pythagoras and Empedocles, which you once studied with such great passion. Many scholars original: "philologists" are also opposed to this abstinence; among them, Clodius the Neapolitan wrote a treatise against those who refrain from eating meat. I will present the investigations and common arguments these men use against our belief, while omitting the specific reasons they use against the scientific demonstrations of Empedocles.

The Arguments of the Peripatetics and Stoics, from Heraclides Ponticus original: "Heraclides Ponticus"; this philosopher was a student original: "auditor" of Plato and Speusippus.

4. Our opponents argue, first of all, that justice will be thrown into confusion—and that things which should be fixed will be disrupted—if we extend the concept of justice to irrational creatures instead of just to rational ones. They believe that only Gods and humans have a relationship with us, and that there is no real alliance between us and the animals, who [in reality] have no connection to us. If we accepted such an alliance, we could no longer use some of them for hard labor or others for food, based on the conviction that such an association...