Lewis Gompertz Quotes

Y: As you think it wrong for man to kill other animals for food, do you also think it wrong that animals should devour each other? As this is the general law of nature.
Z: It appears wrong, according to the rules by which we govern our own actions to each other; and should I witness the attempt in any animal of destroying another, I would endeavour to frustrate it; though this might probably be wrong.

Such animals as be wants, he will nourish on the dregs and refuse of his own food, and give this as a gift; while those which are useless to him are left in a state of starvation, and deprived of the shelter of the forests, cut down by man.

Though brutes suffer much in a natural state, they seem to endure much more when in our power; and in the former state all appearing to mix much enjoyment with their troubles, particularly the horse and the ass, which (as is well known) when wild, form societies, and appoint sentinels to warn them of danger, find their food beneath their feet, their shelter in the warmth of the climate, and make use of their strength with which they are end owed, in travelling about for fresh food, in defending themselves, and in escaping from their enemies; in this state the ass is known to be as active and spirited, as he is here dull and dejected.

Axiom 5. That we should never admit of the propriety of the will or volition of one animal being the agent of another, unless we should perceive its own good to result from it, or that justice should require it.

Y: I suppose you also deem it a crime to drink, as you destroy myriads of animals in the water of every draught?
Z: I consider this an evil, but not a crime, because I do not cause or wish them to be there, and would assist them to escape if possible. They have no more claim to the water than I have; and we know so little of the nature of these animals, that we are not even sure that they die when the water is drunk; the very fact of their being there is concealed from us, and but for the microscope we should never have known it. I however consider it wrong to waste water in anyway which may injure the animalcula.

[I]f we suppose, that to-morrow I will be changed to you, and you into I, there is no change at all, because then the you is the I, and the I the you; and the same applies if the I changes into a table, because then the table itself becomes the I.

Yet we are not always justified in concluding that the killing of animals causes a less number to exist; because some of them are carnivorous, and by being killed they can no longer kill others: while others are graminivorous, and when they can no longer eat up the fruits of the soil, other animals may live upon such fruits instead; still there is no justification of slaughter, as the identical lives are certainly thereby destroyed; and if such an excuse be admitted, it must apply by the same rule to the slaughter even of human beings. But however this may be, it is evident that by far the greatest number of animals live in terror and die by violence from their devourers, and the males also by the attacks of each other, besides pestilence, diseases, accidents and starvation, few living their natural time; while by means of many being sacrificed, a few are enabled to live like in a ship of short provision, though without an equitable casting of lots, but by the law of force over weakness; and this law not being confined to dumb animals, but ruling the lots of man as well as of animals, though its operations on human life may be more concealed, but here also population is kept in check by want of food and by warfare; among mankind itself justice is little more than a name, might being the chief law observed: here, too, the strong destroy and oppress the weak; some are enabled to live and multiply, while many starve and live in celibacy to prevent an overflow, which, notwithstanding, does arise: dispute and warfare then result in which some are destroyed and some preserved. But no person, however virtuous, can live in comfort without consuming more than his share. Such is the world we live in, however Pope may contend that "virtue alone is happiness below."

In order to admire the goodness of God with the greatest force, we should endeavour to reach in imagination the improved state of the world, which it seems probable will be effected in the course of time. What may not be expected from the genius of man, which appears to gain fresh powers from every new idea that he gains from his fellows, and fresh means from all the inventions which the united efforts of the whole species bring forth? It is the extent of combination which chiefly raises man above brutes; and to combination are we to look to mature the views of Providence in forming society, and in regulating the affairs of life. Then will every animal within the reach of man feel the effects of his power, by his increase of happiness instead of his misery, and then only may man boast of his being lord of the creation, for which he will be fitted.

The conclusions, then, from these remarks are, that the soul never dies, and that it is sometimes active; that friends do not know each other’s souls, but this does not preclude their meeting again. How far immortality may be desirable, depends greatly on whether future life may be on this earth or some other; if on this, all the happiness that can be expected is the average happiness of the beings now living, of which class we shall still form one ; or whether we shall inhabit some other sphere ; if so, we have only to hope for the best.

[H]owever the state of man may be above that of other animals, if the superiority be owing to his being differently situated, we must not dazzle ourselves by gazing on the brilliancy of the situation, but learn how to estimate their true qualities only; though the situation gives the one the powers to act, and denies it to the other.

And though I cannot conceive how any person can shut his eyes to the general state of misery throughout the universe, I still think that it is for a wise purpose; that the evils of life, which could not properly be otherwise, will in the course of time be rectified, and the exquisite pleasures for which we are formed will be enjoyed in our progeny: also that we may ourselves become the inhabitants of the improved world, or of some other world improved in a like manner; and that even if the different species of all the present animals should become extinct, as indicated by what we have observed of the different bones in the several strata, the discoveries of the present time may enrich the future, unless every trace of them should be destroyed at once.

The slaying of animals for the most trifling purposes is defended on the ground, that if not done, they would be too numerous, and consequently troublesome to man, and unhappy in themselves; while the promotion of their increase is defended on the assumption, that we are then the authors of much happiness. But let us apply a cautious ear to such reasoning. If the promoting the increase of animals is being the author of increased happiness, destroying them must be positive evil. For our own parts, we prefer neutrality as much as possible on these points, because we know not whether the life of animals generally, abound most with pleasure or pain. We confess that in our view of the question, pain seems to predominate; and the more so the more the numbers of animals are increased; indeed, we neither approve the promoting of the increase of animals, nor of destroying them.

Suppose it were so; so much, then, the better, as we should not want then to show that the soul could become torpid and recover; because, then, it would never be torpid> and, consequently, would be immortal, which is all we want to prove. And this opinion, I believe, is that of the majority of thinking persons, but unfortunately mixed up with divers principles, not orthodox, some of them acknowledging a soul m man, but not in any other living being; others going one step further, and admitting a soul in other animals too, but imagining that it is a different sort of soul to that of man, instead of considering that one soul is similar to another, and that all the difference between one individual and another is corporeal,—the organization of the body or brain, by its variations, alone producing, it would appear, all the varieties of character, without any variation of soul, to which conclusion we are led by the fact that we cannot produce any thought or feeling in the mind but through the instrumentality of the body; and it seems only on the bodily organs, and physical agents upon them, that every perfection and defect of mind depends; an idiot, a philosopher, and a mouse, appearing to have quite similar souls, the difference only being in the organs of sense, which act upon the souls, and are in themselves different. No person can deny that different sensations are produced by bodily causes; why, then, must we look to something else to produce them—namely, to variations of the soul ? Bodily causes are enough, and we are not driven to seek for further causes. The soul is always, if I am correct, the same. It does not grow, it does not decay; and is as perfect in an infant as In a man—the improvement and growth of mind being only of the corporeal part.

Y: Do you bear in mind, that in breeding the silkworms, we cause more to come into existence than would otherwise be the case?
Z: Though I think we are unauthorized to destroy or prevent life, life does not appear so desirable that we should perform any action for the sole purpose of producing it. Man does not possess sufficient knowledge, to do either act with design.

Axiom 8. That the importance of any action is measured by the degree of pleasure or pain that it causes or prevents.