Man is/eats interpretation.

What Food Ethics can learn from

history

Heike Baranzke, Hans Werner Ingensiep, Franz-Theo Gottwald

Interdepartmental Center for Ethics in the Sciences and Humanities, University of Tuebingen, Keplerstr. 17, D72074 Tuebingen
Department of Philosophy, University of Essen, Universitaetsstr. 12, D-45117 Essen
Schweisfurth-Stiftung, Muenchen, Suedliches Schlossrondell 1, D-80638 Muenchen
Keywords :philosophical anthropology, food ethics, animal ethics, virtue ethics, matter & spirit; body & soul, Feuerbach, Porphyry,
Plutarch, Peter Singer
Introduction
The proposition that man always eats his own interpretation demonstrates two forgotten aspects: Firstly that
nutrition never is an act free of value. Secondly that all human acts hide an implicit anthropology. At the same
time we presuppose that there is no ethics without philosophical anthropology, so there is also no food ethics
without philosophical anthropology. In times like ours when food production and food consistence do
profoundly change, the reflection upon these connections between anthropology, ethics, and nutrition is the
very task of ethical reflection. So the newly emerged food ethics seems to be an unconscious indicator of the
new challenges of anthropological self-interpretation.
With the help of two historical confrontations between an ancient and a modern philosophical position we
show that in the act of nutrition man does interpret himself. Starting point is Ludwig Feuerbachs famous saying:
Man is what he eats. Feuerbach interprets the connection of anthropology and nutrition in a materialistic
manner, the Neoplatonist Porphyry did it in a spiritual manner. So we learn to reconsider the richness of
historic self-interpretations in the full range of possibilities, in the width of spirit and matter before restraining
our topical self-definition.
The second example compares the Middle-platonist Plutarch and the animal rights philosopher Peter Singer
with regard to human behaviour towards animals for slaughter. Neither of them is a vegetarian in the strong
sense of the term. But they offer different reasons how animals should be ethically considered. Their different
argumentations are depending strongly to their implicit anthropology. So Plutarch and Singer do also give
alternative interpretations of the sentence: Man is what he eats.

1. Anthropological dimensions: Ludwig Feuerbach and Porphyry

Man is (ist) what he eats (isst). With the help of this dictum the german Left Hegelian philosopher Ludwig
Feuerbach (1804-1872) extracts the content of the book of the physiologist and chemist Jakob Moleschott
(1822-1893) Food science. For the people. Feuerbach, once an enthusiastic pupil of Hegel, opposed more and
more against the idealistic conviction that conceptual notions as products of mind are more real than
perceptible material things. The old world has put the body on the head, the new one put the head on the
body. The old world let originate matter from spirit, the new one spirit from matter. The order of the old world
was fantastic and upside down, the order of the new one is natural and therefore reasonabel. (Baranzke et al.
71) On this way Feuerbach changed himself from a pupil of the German Idealism to the Father of Materialism
who was followed by Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Friedrich Engels (1820-1895).
The idealistic tradition of western philosophy had torn man to two pieces, to the sensuous and perceptible body
and to the imperceptible soul. Opposing this supernaturalistic dream world the chemist Moleschott seems to
show in Feuerbachs opinion that food and drink stick together body and soul (ibid. 69). These physiological
materialists regard food as the literally substance of identity of spirit and nature. Eating constitutes the being of
the body but also the being of the thoughts because: where is no fat there is no meat; but where is no fat there
is no brain, no spirit, too, and fat comes only from food (ibid. 70). On the way of digestion foodstuff
becomes thinking stuff. For the first time the physiological analyses of the chemists Justus von Liebig (18031873) and of Jacob Moleschott focused the attention to the trace elements of nutrition. Defining life as nothing
else but metabolism the physiological materialists connected chemical ingredients of food directly with modes of
thinking: No thought without phosphorus! had Moleschott claimed. So Feuerbach could ask: Is it any
wonder that it is so dark in the world because our greatest thinkers had no phosphorus in their heads? (ibid.
72). And Moleschott lamented: Lazy blood from potatoes, how shall it deliver force to the muscles for
working, how shall it liven the brain up to hope? Poor Ireland! You may not be victorious over your proud
neighbour whose luxuriant flocks grow the power of their soldiers because your food may only arouse
helpless desperation instead of enthusiasm So Feuerbach drew the following ethical and political conclusion
after the unsuccessful German Revolution in 1848: Food become blood, blood becomes heart and brain,
thoughts and thinking stuff. Human food constitutes the basis for human education and way of thinking.
Man is what he eats. Who restricts himself to vegetables is only a vegetative being, without any vigour. (ibid.
73).
The connection between the way of nutrition and the question of human identity was not at first discovered in
the 19th century. Already the ancient philosophers noticed this association, but did interpret it in another way. In
his vegetarian writing On Abstinence from Animal Food (De abstinentia) the neoplatonic philosopher

Porphyry (ca. 232-304) stated who eats animals worships his passions and fixes his soul to the bodily process
of digestion (ibid. 151f.). Like Feuerbach Porphyry is convinced that bodily feelings like the enjoyment of food
do keep together body and soul (ibid. 151). But in contrast to Feuerbach Porphyry does not want to keep
body and soul together. On this way nutrition becomes an anthropological and ethical question also for
Porphyry who regards man as a being putted on the scala naturae between the material animal and the spiritual
God. From the ontological position of man as a being between the bodily material world and the spiritual
sphere of God arises the question to whom man wants to become similar to the animal or to God. To
become similar to something or somebody means in latin assimilare. Now it becomes literally clear that the
ethical question to whom I shall assimilate is also a question of nutrition. On the way of assimilation the
Neoplatonist does realise his decision upon his own human essence and destiny. Through the choice of food
bloodstained predator food or spiritual ambrosia man decides if he wants to become similar to an animal or to
God. Man is what he eats.
2. Animal ethical and vegetarian dimensions: Plutarch and Peter Singer
In his two fragments On the Eating of Flesh (De Esu Carnium) the Greek philosopher Plutarch (ca. 47-120)
had already asked: For what sort of dinner is not costly for which a living creature loses its life? (Plutarch II
569). Plutarch confronts the inconsiderate Carnivore with the sensuous-asthetic aspect of his mode of life and
asks, by what accident and in what state of soul or mind the first man who did so, touched his mouth to gore
and brought his lips to the flesh of a dead creature, he who set forth tables of dead, stale bodies and ventured to
call food and nourishment the parts that had a little before bellowed and cried, moved and lived. How could his
eyes endure the slaughter when throats were slit and hides flayed and limbs torn from limb? How could his nose
endure the stench? How was it that the pollution did not turn away his taste, which made contact with the sores
of others and sucked juices and serums from mortal wounds? (Plutarch I 541).
All five senses touching, hearing, seeing, smelling, and tasting which man shares with the animals for
slaughter are questioned with regard to the completeness of perception. At the same time Plutarch demonstrates
that the realisation of sense perception of the animals is prevented when killing them. With their senses, their
outer sense perception and their inner sensitivity, animals enjoy their lifes as well as man does. This way
Plutarch puts in front of everyone that the carnivorous man is what he eats. But he connects this statement with
the moral question if man should eat to which he feels strongly akin. Initially Plutarch interprets man as a
perceptive and sensitive being, but then he entrusts him with the task of cultivating his perceptibility and
sensitivity. Plutarch is convinced that cultivating his own perceptibility and sensitivity leads necessarily to the
consideration of the sensitivity of other humans and of all other sensitive beings. So every cultivated human
being would daily come to question himself if injuring the sensitivity of other sensitive beings would really be

necessary. Now we can understand that Plutarch makes the animals for slaughter saying to man: I do not ask to
be spared in case of necessity; only spare me your arrogance! Kill me to eat, but not to please your palate!
(Plutarch I 551) Plutarch asks furtheron apart from these considerations, do you not find here a wonderful
means of training in social responsibility? Who could wrong a human being when he found himself so gently
and humanely disposed toward other non-human creatures? (Plutarch I 557.559). Here is the old virtue ethical
argument of coarsening. Vegetarian diet makes yourself gentle, carnivorous diet turns you into a coarse being.
Animal killing coarsens human character. Humanity as a condition of nutrition that is Plutarchs suggestion.
Similar arguments as in Plutarchs position we can find in that of the australian animal rights defender, Peter
Singer. In his meanwhile classical animal rights movement writing Animal Liberation Singer starts similar to
Plutarch with his own life experience that is to be a being able to feel pain and pleasure. Then he draws the
conclusion: If a being is not capable of suffering, or of experiencing enjoyment or happiness, there is nothing
to be taken inot account. (Singer 8) In Singers opinion man defined as a being capable of feeling pleasure
and pain should eat nothing which is capable of feeling pleasure and pain. Man should not eat what he is. But
Plutarch had said man should check each situation if he really has to eat what he also is, namely a sensuous
being. Besides being a sensuous being man is for Plutarch moreover man, that is a being able to check and to
cultivate himself. Certainly Singer does not make this position obvious, but implicitly you can find unconscious
rests of this virtue ethical self-cultivation which builds the basis of a moral person. For example when claiming
that vegetarianism brings with it a new relationship to food, plants, and nature (ibid. 178). And he tells
furtheron: When we eat plants, food takes on a different quality. We take from the earth food that is ready for
us and does not fight against us as we take it. Personally, I found the idea of picking my own dinner so
satifying that shortly after becoming a vegetarian I began digging up part of our backyard and growing some of
my own vegetables . (ibid. 178). That is the way on which also Singer suggest that man should eat what he
essentially is, namely that he should eat the self-growing vegetables of a peaceful gardener. Furthermore it
should at least be mentioned that for Singer the famine in the developing world is an important reason for
vegetarian diet. So we eat also his social utopia when we follow his lessons.
Conclusion
In the mode of nutrition man interprets himself and tells what is his opinion of himself. In the logic of
assimilation arises the question as what sort of being man defines himself and to whom he believes he should
become similar. The sentence: Man is what he eats hides two ethical questions: What should man be? and
What should man eat? That shows: nutrition is never free of any value judgement. On the contrary nutrition
is always value framed although unconsciously. With the act of nutrition man realises his value convictions. In
so far man always eats his own self-interpretation. Therefore the business for food ethics is to make the implicit

anthropology of nutrition explicit and to reflect the manifold ethical dimensions of nutrition and its modes of
production.
References
Baranzke, H.; Gottwald, F.-T., and Ingensiep, H. W. (ed.), 2000. Leben Toeten Essen. Anthropologische
Dimensionen. Hirzel Verlag, Stuttgart.
Plutarch 1995, On the Eating of Flesh (De Esu Carnium I and II). In: Plutarch, Moralia Vol XII, transl. by
Cherniss, H. and Helmbold, W. C. Harvard University Press; Cambridge, Mass.; London, England. Loeb
Classical Library, pp. 540-579.
Singer, P., 1990, Animal Liberation. Second Edition. The New York Review of Books. New York, N. Y.