On the eating of flesh II (6-7)

There remains yet another contention with the Stoics[*] about flesh-eating, and this is not equal, either. For what is this great tension [*] on the belly and the kitchen? Why, when they count pleasure effeminate and denounce it as being neither a good nor an advanced principle [*] nor commensurate with Nature, [*] are they so concerned with these pleasures? It would certainly be consistent for them, since they banish perfume and cakes from their banquets, to be more squeamish about blood and flesh. But as it is, confining as it were their philosophy to their ledgers, they economize on their dinners in trivial and needless details while they do not deprecate this inhuman and murderous item of expense. Of course, they say, we human beings have no compact of justice with irrational animals. [*] Nor, one might reply, have you with perfume or exotic sweetmeats either. Refrain from animals also, if you

Let us, however, now examine the point whether we really have no compact of justice with animals; and let us do so in no artificial or sophistical manner, but fixing our attention on our own emotions and conversing like human beings with ourselves and weighing⋯[*]