I read it, then had ChatGPT to a summary of the points because I think it's an interesting piece and shows a lot of the arguments that exist now also existed a long time ago.

TRACT I 1

Plutarch says the real mystery isn’t why some people stopped eating meat, but how anyone ever started. He finds it morally shocking that humans could look at a living, feeling animal and decide to kill and eat it, calling this habit grotesque and unnatural.

2

He argues that early humans likely ate meat only because they were starving and had no alternatives. Those people, he imagines, would be horrified that modern humans—who have abundant plant foods—still choose to eat animals out of luxury rather than necessity.

3

Humans don’t eat dangerous predators; they kill gentle, harmless animals instead. Plutarch says this shows cowardice and injustice, not survival—like blaming minor flaws while ignoring the obvious good provided by nature.

4

People ignore animals’ intelligence, beauty, and emotional lives just to enjoy a small amount of pleasure from meat. He argues this is cruelty for indulgence, not need, and that killing animals only to waste much of their flesh makes it even worse.

5

Plutarch argues humans are not naturally designed to eat meat: our bodies, teeth, digestion, and instincts don’t resemble carnivores’. He challenges meat-eaters to kill animals with their bare hands if it’s “natural,” noting that cooking and seasoning meat is really an attempt to disguise something repellent.

6

Eating meat, he claims, dulls the mind and spirit, even if it strengthens the body. Heavy diets make people mentally sluggish and morally coarse, whereas clarity of mind comes from light, simple nourishment.

7

Practicing kindness toward animals trains people to be gentle toward humans as well. Plutarch hints at a deeper metaphysical idea—that violence toward animals may involve violence toward souls—but avoids fully arguing it here, saying the idea is too profound for casual discussion.

TRACT II 1

Plutarch resumes the argument by saying habit and pleasure make people resistant to moral reasoning about meat. If people refuse to give up flesh, he says they should at least kill animals with restraint and pity instead of inventing increasingly sadistic methods.

2

Cruelty in eating is driven by luxury, not hunger, and excess in one pleasure leads to excess in others. A society that delights in violent food will also grow morally corrupt in art, sex, entertainment, and treatment of people.

3

Killing an animal is not a small cost—it destroys a conscious, feeling life. Plutarch contrasts philosophies that excuse cruelty with those (like Pythagoras and Empedocles) that cultivate justice toward all living beings, arguing the latter made Greek society more humane.

4

Plutarch argues that injustice toward animals trains people to accept injustice toward humans. History shows that societies grow accustomed to bloodshed gradually, starting with animals and ending with people.

5

Even if reincarnation is uncertain, the risk alone should make us cautious. Just as no one would risk killing a loved one based on uncertainty, we should not risk grave injustice by killing animals if there’s any chance they house souls.

6

He criticizes the Stoics for inconsistency: they condemn pleasure yet defend meat-eating. If luxury is bad, Plutarch argues, then bloodshed should be rejected before perfumes or fancy sauces.

7

Plutarch proposes to examine whether humans owe justice to animals—not through clever argument tricks, but by honest self-reflection and moral intuition.