Narnian Cannibalism

By: Katherine Forbes

March 27, 2012

When Eustace, Jill and Puddleglum are staying at Harfang they are at one point served the meat from a talking Narnian Stag by the giants. Upon realizing what they are eating, Puddleglum produces a particularly alarmed response, saying that they are all cursed for having eaten the flesh of a fellow Narnian. We can gather this is probably the equivalent of cannibalism. Although Lewis does not bring the subject up again and this “curse” does not seem to result in anything, the event is still a curious one and prompts several important questions regarding the ethics of eating other animals. This coincides with research I recently conducted on horse slaughter for human consumption: an industry which having been illegal for 5 years was recently legalized, and met with considerable controversy and anger.

One of the best places to look for ethical guidelines regarding the consumption of meat is in the Bible. God provided the Jews with very specific guidelines regarding the treatment and consumption of animal products within Halakha. The foundation for the honorable treatment of animals is based upon the principle that animals are ‘good’ in God’s eyes and therefore worthy of respect when killed to give people nourishment. Kosher guidelines partly insure that all meat consumed is extremely sanitary and safe to eat, therefore animals and parts of the animal which may carry disease are forbidden. Other stipulations are a matter of respect for the animals, for example it is forbidden to eat milk and meat in the same meal. What can we conclude from these? That people are supposed to think about what they put into their bodies, and about the animal which gave its life so that we may continue ours. In our society many foods we eat daily are highly processed and contain obscure ingredients: corn and soy for example can be processed a hundred different ways and added to thousands of foods from soda to sausage links. I think God has given us a certain level of responsibility to understand the foods we eat and whether they are actually good for us.

What are the moral implications of eating certain kinds of meat, beyond the health stipulations? Let’s consider an extreme example: in Sweeney Todd hundreds of customers ate meat cakes composed of human flesh, entirely unaware. Had they realized what the meat cakes they came back for time and time again were composed of, they likely would have been horrified. Did a curse come down upon them for eating the meat cakes? probably not, just like the curse didn’t seem to amount to anything in The Silver Chair: does this make it ok? Most of us are inclined to say no. Why do we consider this wrong though? The consumption of horse meat is another good example. Although it is “more acceptable” to eat a horse than a human, there is a considerable ethical question whether people should when other food is so plentiful. Cannibalism and unethical consumption are oftentimes justified if the purpose is to save someone’s life, but even this is controversial. Americans for the most part have begun to view horses as companion animals (horses are actually more popular than cats as a favorite domesticated animal among Americans) and correspondingly, the consumption of horses has come to be condemned by over 80% of the US population according to two studies conducted by independent polling firms. Eating cats and dogs is also generally disturbing for most people. Yet in Japan, eating all three is acceptable.

One theory as to why cannibalism is viewed as unethical, and to a lesser degree the consumption of companion animals could be described as a social contract. For humans, by entering into society we become kin to a certain extent, and with that notion come various social responsibilities, not to mention emotional ties. For animals, by providing people with companionship among other things, horses, cats and dogs engage in the social contract, and we in turn provide them with food, shelter, oftentimes pampering, and a respectful and painless goodbye when age overtakes them. It is the responsibility we come to owe them through the unspoken social contract and the empathy and respect which we have for these animals, and other people, which makes the thought of eating their flesh entirely revolting.