f the two--vegetarianism or
omnivorism--is superior from the ethical point of view.

The science of ethics is the science of conduct. It is founded,
primarily, upon philosophical postulates without which no code or system
of morals could be formulated. Briefly, these postulates are, (a), every
activity of man has as its deepest motive the end termed Happiness, (b)
the Happiness of the individual is indissolubly bound up with the
Happiness of all Creation. The truth of (a) will be evident to every
person of normal intelligence: all arts and systems aim consciously, or
unconsciously, at some good, and so far as names are concerned everyone
will be willing to call the Chief Good by the term Happiness, although
there may be unlimited diversity of opinion as to its nature, and the
means to attain it. The truth of (b) also becomes apparent if the matter
is carefully reflected upon. Everything that is _en rapport_ with all
other things: the pebble cast from the hand alters the centre of gravity
in the Universe. As in the world of things and acts, so in the world of
thought, from which all action springs. Nothing can happen to the part
but the whole gains or suffers as a consequence. Every breeze that
blows, every cry that is uttered, every thought that is born, affects
through perpetual metamorphoses every part of the entire Cosmic
Existence.[2]

We deduce from these postulates the following ethical precepts: a wise
man will, firstly, so regulate his conduct that thereby he may
experience the greatest happiness; secondly, he will endeavour to bestow
happiness on others that by so doing he may receive, indirectly, being
himself a part of the Cosmic Whole, the happiness he gives. Thus supreme
selfishness is synonymous with supreme egoism, a truth that can only be
stated paradoxically.

Applying this latter precept to the matter in hand, it is obvious that
since we should so live as to give the greatest possible happiness to
all beings capable of appreciating it, and as it is an indisputable
fact that animals can suffer pain, _and that men who slaughter animals
needlessly suffer from atrophy of all finer feelings_, we should
therefore cause no unnecessary suffering in the animal world. Let us
then consider whether, knowing flesh to be unnecessary as an article of
diet, we are, in continuing to demand and eat flesh-food, acting morally
or not. To answer this query is not difficult.

It is hardly necessary to say that we are ca