It has been generally, but not always, the custom of naturalists to degrade the powers of dumb animals into mere instinct, and not to allow them reas… - Lewis Gompertz
" "It has been generally, but not always, the custom of naturalists to degrade the powers of dumb animals into mere instinct, and not to allow them reason; and on the other hand to elevate the qualities of man, by entirely disavowing the power of instinct in man, giving him the use of reason alone. It appears to me, that there is such a quality as instinct; by which I understand a desire to do any thing without knowing why, or without having the object in view which it is to reach. I am of opinion that both reason and instinct act in man and also in brutes; and I will even grant that the proportion of reason to instinct is greater in man than in other animals; but that the latter possess a great portion of reason would it seems be absurd to dispute.
English
Collect this quote
About Lewis Gompertz
(1783/4 – 2 December 1861) was an English philosopher, writer, inventor, and social reformer. He was best known for his pioneering advocacy of the moral consideration of animals, early veganism, and opposition to animal exploitation. A founding member of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (later the RSPCA), he later established the Animals' Friend Society to promote a more comprehensive ethical stance toward animals. His 1824 treatise, Moral Inquiries on the Situation of Man and of Brutes, offered one of the first systematic critiques of animal use, combining philosophical argument with proposals for social reform. He also supported causes including women's rights, anti-slavery, and the welfare of the poor. In addition to his activism, Gompertz was an accomplished mechanical inventor who sought to develop alternatives to animal labour.
Also Known As
Alternative Names:
L. Gompertz
Related quotes. More quotes will automatically load as you scroll down, or you can use the load more buttons.
Additional quotes by Lewis Gompertz
But so far from there being an alliance between ethicks and physics, nearly all Nature’s works are at war with each other, the good of the one being derived from the injury of the other. But when pointed out to the vegetarians that carnivorous animals thrive on, and require animal food, they say it is right that they should use it, but that man being superior, should not.
Now this does seem inconsistent, as right and wrong are absolute without reference to one animal more than another; and it is not the superiority or inferiority of either aggressive party which can establish the justice, but the effects on the victims are the points at issue. The vegetarians would reply however, that man was not formed for animal diet, and that the carnivori were; but this is not taking up the question on moral grounds, on the supposition that man was formed for it (as many persons believe), because the formation of man would not determine the justice, unless that it should explain the intention of God, but which I think they would find a difficulty to show.
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.
Works in ChatGPT, Claude, or Any AI
Add semantic quote search to your AI assistant via MCP. One command setup.
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.
Loading...