Does Diet Affect Character?
By George Ide Butler
This question is important. If it be answered in the affirmative, the diet question cannot be confined to physiology alone, but is manifestly connected with morals and religion. There is no object of greater importance to our well-being here and hereafter than the attainment of a good moral character. This should be the great aim of life to all. If we are in the daily practice of habits that render the accomplishment of this object more difficult, it should be a matter of interest to us to ascertain the fact; for, in this wicked world, we need help in the right direction, and not hinderances. There is an opinion largely prevailing that what we eat has no perceptible effect upon the mind, and this is one reason why so many honest Christian people take so little interest in a reform in diet. It seems to them a matter of minor importance. It is just this class of people whose influence the health reform needs; and they also need the benefit of it. Sober, conscientious men and women of common sense, who will act with reason and good judgment, we desire to reason with on this question. To make the matter very simple and plain, we will commence with alcohol in its various preparations. Who does not know that the habitual use of this debases the moral powers? How many instances do we have of men of noble and generous natures rendered beastly and almost devilish by its use. The change is stamped on the very countenance. When the mind is constantly under the influence of this stimulant, it is almost impossible to affect it by any appeal to moral principle. The course is downward. The lower order of faculties, the appetites and passions, are rendered stronger while the moral powers are weaker. The modus operandi I leave to the scientific man to describe. But the effect is too well known to be disputed. The effect of constant stimulation seems to be to throw the mind out of its proper balance, and increase the strength of the lower propensities. If this be a fact, and I think none will dispute it, will not stimulating substances of any kind work toward the same result? No doubt the effect of alcohol in this respect is more marked than anything else, yet I believe we can see something of the same principle in operation elsewhere. I verily believe a large portion of our city population owe a share of their vicious propensities to their habits of life. Dwelling in dirty tenement-houses, half deprived of the light and pure air of heaven, stupified in tobacco, strong coffee, and beer, eating largely of pork and grease, they live an abnormal life. Their main pleasure is the gratification of the appetites and propensities. An appeal to their moral faculties often meets about as much response as would an appeal to a Digger Indian; and who will deny that these habits of life have any effect upon his character? Such cases are not all confined to the cities. They are to be seen in all directions. Whole nations of the earth are affected by these influences. Take an intelligent book of travels and read of the domestic habits of the Asiatic and African nations, and you will soon see the relation between diet and character. I do not believe there are many exceptions to this world-wide relation. Is there not a connection between the diet of the blood-thirsty Abyssinian who takes the bleeding flesh from the ox warm and raw, and devours it like the wild animal, and his well-known character for cruelty and ferocity? Is it not a well-known fact that those given to licentious practices fire up their languid passions by oysters and various kinds of highly seasoned food? Does not the prize fighter when preparing to engage in the brutal contest, live almost wholly on flesh-meat? Will not a dog fed wholly on flesh become much more savage than one that has not? Many more such questions might be asked, admitting of but one reply. I think enough has been said to show that there is a very plain connection between diet and character. If this is so, shall those virtuously inclined be less interested in the matter than those viciously inclined? Shall we consider it a matter of indifference whether we summon to our aid all the help we can get, or have to labor hard to counteract evil habits of living? Let us be wise to do good. I believe God gave man the best diet when he placed him upon the earth in a state of innocency, that which would insure the best results. He certainly had a care for his moral well-being, as well as for his physical. He says, “Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.” Gen. 1:29. When God brought his chosen people, Israel, forward to the land of promise, he showed his preference for the same kind of diet. The result was good: “There was not a sick one in all their tribes.” When the prophet Daniel was placed under the corrupting influence of the kingly courts, he had sense enough to look above the present gratification to future well-being; and at a special trial of ten days’ duration, between those who partook of a stimulating, luxurious diet, and those who chose a temperate, vegetable diet, he came out “fairer and fatter in flesh than all the children which did eat of the portion of the king’s meat.” A long life of health, of usefulness, with a clear mind, attest that the trial of ten days was a piece of the same whole. Many instances might be adduced from history in the lives of some of the greatest men who have ever lived, that would show that God’s original plan has produced the best results morally, as well as physically. I am not an extremist in these things, but feel bound to say that by reflection, observation, and experience, I have become satisfied that the great principles of temperance embodied in the health reform have an important relation to moral character.