Lewis Gompertz Quotes

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.

It is strange that philosophers first show how one animal supports itself by destroying another, and then enter into discussions on the apparent admirable order of things in their present state. But though this may be a necessary contrivance, and the only way in which life can be supported, it can never be a beautiful one, in our short sights, notwithstanding that something worse might be, were this not the case.

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.

Y: Do you include those animals which are guilty of the same crime themselves by living on prey? Should we not then save a thousand lives by killing one?
Z: We must never suppose a person or an animal guilty until they are found in the act, and then we must investigate the nature of the crime. It is true that the animal living by slaughter may be less entitled to our consideration than the animal which is harmless; but recollect, the former may plead the same excuse itself, unless his slaughter be only of those animals which live on vegetables; and then, though justice may require their destruction, it would be repugnant to the feelings of humanity to slaughter them with that plea, unless we could quite assure our conscience that our design in killing them was more to prevent their doing mischief than for our own benefit: besides, we might then extend this principle still further, and kill our own species because they are also animals of prey. It is moreover to be observed, that if one carnivorous animal kills another, he may save lives by it also, and the nature of the act will be different according to circumstances [...] And, further, it will frequently be impossible to discover when the animal becomes guilty or innocent, as it depends on such a variety of circumstances: we should therefore be more safe from infringing the laws of moral rectitude, not to interfere in this case.

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.

But the reader must particularly observe, that by the word “ soul” I do not mean precisely the same thing as most persons do—the general opinion of believers in soul being that it is the spirit of the person unencumbered, and set free of the body in a more perfect state than in this life, with all the feelings and senses, and even more than when united to the body. But my meaning is very different. I look on it (as I have expressed) as a thing totally devoid of feeling or thought, excepting when it is operated on by the body, and that when not, is totally insensible, and cannot be perceived unconnected with the body by any mortal eye, but only by the Almighty.

The plan by which Nature preserves, regulates and produces her beings, though continually before the eyes of mankind, enters little into their brains or hearts. Authors generally varnish over, or hide the unsightly parts of her system, and in their mistaken religious zeal, think they see the beauty while they are dwelling on the deformity; one minute they allude to the immense produce and destruction of animals for the support of each other, and then pass on into eulogies on the power and goodness of God, in having been the author of this destruction, by which means they state so much happiness and delight springs, and the only object of God being, as they would lead us to believe, the benefit of mankind.

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.

[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 economy of life seems to be that man and most animals if in peace and plenty, would soon overstock the world with their produce, and that most species continue to increase till they exceed the food provided for their support, or till killed to make way for others. Some moralists admire this system of one animal devouring another as they say by this means more can live, and consequently they infer more happiness results. But that more can live by this means we doubt, and still more that the degree of happiness is increased; first, they must convince us that life generally abounds in pleasure, as to us the reverse seems to be the fact; though necessarily admitted by the Almighty for reasons beyond our reach to discover. If we look at the forest, the ocean, the air, or a drop of water in a microscope, all is found teeming with life, and to a superficial eye all is in active enjoyment; but a nice observer soon discovers the universal discord, trepitude and destruction proceeding everywhere: the strong oppressing the weak, one party half starved and ravenously pursuing another, some terrified devoted victims vainly endeavouring to escape the hungry jaws of their pursuer, some perished by want, others devoured alive, thousands destroyed every instant, and few allowed to remain, but those few so nicely balanced as to preserve the species through numerous ages; every fly or reptile, however contemptible in the eyes of some persons being possessed of a pedigree more remote than the most ancient nobility can emblazon, great grandfathers and mothers from time immemorial; and notwithstanding they are in the midst of their enemies, including man, who use every means and violence to destroy them; here by the care of God, they remain preserved from thousands of years back, as uninjured as if in a bandbox!!

The force of custom or habits even proverbial; and accordingly we take advantage of the magnified representation in which we have been pleased to paint its effects, to veil our eyes from the sufferings of others, of mankind as well as of brutes; and whatever be their lots, if they suffer from over exertion, from being flogged, from exposure in danger, from want, from cold, from heat, etc., we lull our imagination with the idea that they do not feel those evils: custom we say is second nature.

First, how do you prove that mankind is invested with the right of killing them, and that brutes have been created for the purpose you assert them to be? Secondly, it is to be observed that the flesh of man himself possesses the same nourishing and palatable qualities? And are we then to become cannibals for that reason?

[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.

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.