August 10, 1907.

AM I A WORM?1

________ Most of what people call our intellectual progress is futile because it does not start or date from anywhere or anything. It is like a man pulling in coil after coil of a long rope that is not tied on to anything, and then saying that he is making the rope longer. It is very common in our time to meet enthusiasts who are anxious to go further, but have really no notion of how they came to be where they are. For instance, I have met at least six ladies who said that women ought to have votes, but who were quite surprised when I suggested that we should begin the inquiry by asking why men have votes. What are votes? Why does anybody have votes? One must have some fixed first principle on this matter before one can deal with any further application of the idea. Yet these ladies, vaguely thinking that votes for men were settled, have never really asked why they were settled. And the case is exactly the same with this question of mans moral relation to the other animals which has been raised by H. N. B. in connection with vegetarianism.2 While H. N. B. and his school run eagerly on saying rapidly, If it is wrong to eat men I assure you it is quite as wrong to eat beasts; even eggs we shall say in our mild manner: Hold hard; wait a minute. Why is it wrong to eat men? Is it wrong to eat men? What is the principle behind this existing veto which you so cheerfully take for granted? When we have got that clearly in our intellects we will see whether it applies to the case of beasts or not. And when we do discover the first principles upon which H. N. B. argues we find (it will be generally agreed) that they are rather extraordinary ones. For his first principle is that man matters nothing to the universe. But if man does not matter what does matter? Does the universe matter? If, as H. N. B. says, our world is an insignificant world, will he show us a significant world? He must have one somewhere about him, or he could not even have made the comparison.

Copyright

278

Am I a Worm?

279

**** Now of course it is not necessary to go back to such first principles when one is doing an ordinary thing that rests upon the old assumptions. For instance, the regulation of traffic in streets certainly rests on an ultimate optimistic philosophy; the doctrine (disputed by many thinkers) that it is a kindness to people to keep them alive. But when a policeman holds up his hand and says Stop! it is not necessary that the policeman should say Stop! Remember that humanity has, in spite of some exceptional schools of pessimism, generally agreed that conscious life is in normal cases a reasonable object of desire. When we say Good-morning, it is not necessary to add Good-morning; because one of my first principles is that we should be concerned for the welfare of others. Here, in such cases we need not state the established principle because we are doing the established thing But if you are going to make sensational changes in so great a matter as the relation of man to nature, you must not do it by vaguely applying what you conceive to be the existing principles; you must look seriously at the principles before you apply them. Consider how vast and frightful a change the extreme vegetarian ethic would make in our judgment upon our brethren and the standard of good men and bad. Humanitarianism is a great blow at humanity. If a poor woman toils to get the family a herring for supper humanity calls her a good woman because she sacrifices herself to the children. Humanitarianism would call her a wicked woman, because she ought to have sacrificed herself to the herring. Humanity calls Christ merciful when He distributes fish among the multitude. Humanitarianism would call Him unmerciful because he distributed death among the fish. Humanity calls Henry of Navarre a good king because he said that the aim of statesmanship should be to give every peasant a chicken in his pot.3 Humanitarianism would call him a devil encouraging cannibalism among his people. The new humanitarianism, in short, blasts with one stroke the moral character of the mass of mankind, but especially of the hospitable, the hardworking, the self-sacrificing, and the courageously poor. It turns into bad acts about half the good acts of history. Now, it seems very obvious that before we turn the whole moral history of mankind upside down like this, we should like to know what is the first principle upon which we are called upon to do it. And if we find that the first principle is H. N. B.s first principle, which is that nothing matters a rap, I think we shall be inclined to say that the reason is not good enough. But everything turns upon what is the reason. What is the primary axiom at the back of the mind of vegetarians when they say that meat-eating is wrong? If the axiom is The brutes are as important as man I deny it. If the axiom is H. N. B.s axiom, Man is as insignificant as the brutes, then I deny that. If the axiom is

Copyright

280

G. K. Chesterton at the Daily News, Volume 4

One should never kill anything, I deny that. If the axiom is One should never eat anything that has been alive, I deny that. If the axiom is Animals should have all the same privileges as men, I deny that. If the axiom is One should always be as kind to everything as one reasonably can, I accept that at once and entirely. But since in a world where multitudinous things are preying on each other it must always be a question of balancing one kindness against another, I deny altogether that this last axiom leads to vegetarianism. **** But since the only object of this article is to induce people to state their first principles perhaps example may reasonably be required. Briefly, then, and with every consciousness of the clumsiness of words in so deep a matter, I will state what are the axioms on which I should always base my relations to man and the beasts. First, I will lay down a dogma, a pure and a mystical dogma, for it is a thing that cannot positively be proved. I will lay it down thus: Every man owes pity to everything that lives. In no conceivable way can it be proved that a man ought to take any interest whatever in a world for which he is not responsible. This is a perfect example. It will be accepted by most decent people; but it must be accepted. It cannot be argued. To this principle there are no limits at all except its own. If in a lump of rock the crystal creaks [in a manner]...faintly akin to the thing that we call conscious being, then let all men be sorry for that lump of rock, and if they like take their hats off as they pass it. The heathen has said it for ever in the great line which is hackneyed, but still untranslatable; there are tears of things, and all things that are mortal touch the heart.4 So far, all humanity that is humane agrees. But there is one very plain and staring fact about this universal sympathy. It must in its nature be indeterminate in its outline; it must shade and fade away. Let a man be as extreme a humanitarian as he likes, he allows a difference of degree. He does not think that drinking the animalculae in a glass of water is the same as killing and eating his favourite dog. I will suppose any fanaticism. Suppose he wishes to give horses votes; still he does not wish to give them to jelly fish. Or if he wishes it, he wishes in vain. Perhaps he would make his horse Prime Minister, like the Roman Emperor who was, like many humanitarians, a wealthy person with despotic tastes.5 But he would not make a slug Prime Minister; a slug at the best could only be an Under-Secretary of State. This general duty to all creatures varies, and is vague. It is hard to say at any given moment exactly what one owes to a giraffe. You could not put into the Church Catechism after My duty towards my neighbour a clear and invariable pronouncement with the title My duty towards my giraffe. Now this is the whole deadly and final point. Our duty towards animals must be vague. Our duty towards men most emphatically must not be vague. All the

Copyright

Am I a Worm?

281

best civilization, all the French Revolution and the recent centuries[,] have been directed towards defining the rights of man, making them indisputable. Now nobody can make the rights of slugs and jelly fish indisputable. They must be left to a human discretion. But God forbid that mens rights should ever be left to a human discretion. We know that human discretion. Its other name is Plutocracy. A man has rights; to be a citizen in his human state, to be heard in human law courts, to choose his human mate, to educate his human children. Now nobody will ever say that all animals have these rights. Nobody will ever say that pigs have a right to vote, or that rabbits have a right to be heard in law courts. Nobody will say that. But numberless people will say this: that there is a graduated scale among men as among animals. That black men have not the rights of white men. That ignorant men have not the same rights as wise men. Therefore I lay down my second dogma or axiom: Every man owes it to men to keep the rights of men quite distinct and definite. If anyone says the things said just above, let him be suppressed. If there is a church of humanity, let him be anathema. If there is an army of humanity, let him be shot. For he is a traitor to the whole adventure of the house of Adam. Notes
1. 2. 3.

4. 5.

AM I A WORM: cf. Psalm 22:6: But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people. Mans moral relations vegetarianism: for the context of this article, see What Shall I Eat?, letter to the editor, DN, 8 August 1907, pp. 2757 above. Henry of Navarre chicken in his pot: Henry IV (15531610), was king of France, 1589 1610 and king of Navarre, 15721610. Paul Philippe Hardouin de Prfixe (160671), in his Histoire du Roy Henry le Grand (1681), reports him as having said: Si Dieu me prte vie, je ferai quil ny aura point de laboureur en mon royaume qui nait les moyens davoir le dimanche une poule dans son pot (If God lends me life, I will see to it that there is no labourer in my kingdom who does not have the means to have a chicken in his pot on Sunday). all things heart: Virgil, Aeneid 1:462: Sunt lacrimae rerum, et mentem mortlia tangunt. like the Roman emperor despotic tastes: Among many other eccentric things, the emperor Caligula (Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, imp. ad 12 ad 41), is said to have made his horse Incitatus a senator, a consul and a priest (Suetonius, Vita 55; Cassius Dio 59:14; 59:28).

Copyright

August 21, 1907

UT EXPERIENTIA DOCET.

________

(To the Editor of The Daily News.)

Sir, There was a time when I tried to read Mr. Chestertons column as Saturday came round, but I soon came to the conclusion that it was too clever for me, and I therefore decided to call it rot and leave it alone. When a man can argue that black is white, and, getting the worst of the argument, tries to score a point by making his opponent define the meaning of black, I consider him too dangerous to be allowed to mould the minds of simple folk like myself. I see, however, to-day that Mr. Chesterton is desirous of knowing whether he is a worm.1 If he really doesnt know, I may possibly be able to help him to a conclusion. Worms feed and thrive on dead bodies of animals; so apparently does Mr. Chesterton; and from these data I have no doubt he will be easily able to answer himself in the affirmative; a small amount of his ordinary newspaper logic will prove it to him at once. Now, Mr. Editor, I have a proposition to make. Let Mr. Chesterton visit a slaughter-house and see the sort of work he has made other men do for him in the past.2 Let his investigation be a thorough one, and, if possible, let him assist in the work himself. Then let him go home and, saying his grace, or, at any rate, thinking of it, let him dine (if he can), and let him ponder over his own axiom One should always be as kind to everything as one reasonably can. The next day let him take some eggs from (by arrangement with their owner, of course) hens nests, and let him dine off an omelette. Again, let him ponder over his axiom. Is he acting more closely to it to-day than yesterday? Also let him think over the case of the slaughterman. Has he (your contributor, Mr. Chesterton) been assisting for years past to degrade the mind and soul of the man? He will perhaps begin to understand the refinement of those people who refuse to eat eggs even because the fowls that laid them may be killed for human food Yours, etc., K. T.

Copyright

289

290

G. K. Chesterton at the Daily News, Volume 4

Notes
1. 2. I see worm: a response to Chestertons article Am I a Worm, DN, 10 August, 1907, pp. 27881 above. Let Mr. Chesterton visit in the past: A similar point was made by another correspondent: H. Cocking, What Shall I Eat? letter to the editor, DN, 23 August 1907, p. 3.

Copyright