Humanitarian Philosophy, 4th Edition — Reading Companion

(0 User reviews) 1349

In Category - Ethics

Authors: Kusel, Emil Edward Digital Source: Project Gutenberg Gutenberg Release Year: 2015 First Publication Year: Not confirmed

Key Word: Animal welfare; Vegetarianism -- Religious aspects Target Reader: Readers of public-domain and historical texts

Book Edition: Project Gutenberg digital edition Book Language: en

Edition facts

Words 11,254

Reading time 49 min

Text sections 3

The catalog record for Humanitarian Philosophy, 4th Edition — Reading Companion provides practical reading context through 11,254 words, 49 min estimated reading time, and 3 detected text sections.

The text analysis averages about 23.0 words per sentence, while the detected sections provide another way to judge how the source is divided.

Project Gutenberg metadata also associates the work with “Animal welfare,” connecting these edition facts with the source record’s subject description.

Source: Project Gutenberg record #48589

Kusel's 1912 polemic uses epigrams, Q&A, and biblical citation to argue that flesh-eating contradicts Christian morality, positioning vegetarianism as essential to true religion.

Editorial Edition Score 4.5/5

★★★★★ ★★★★★

Calculated from edition completeness, EPUB availability, text structure and catalogue metadata. Not a user rating.

How this score is calculated

Description quality20 pts
Title & short description10 pts
Source metadata20 pts
Text length15 pts
Chapters / structure15 pts
EPUB file integrity20 pts

Total of 100 points, scaled to a 2.5-5.0 range. Editions with an empty description or a missing EPUB file are not scored.

Edition quality

File: pg48589

Read the Text

Extracts From His Letters

Thou shalt not kill.--Bible.

The individuality created by God is not carnivorous.--Mary Baker G. Eddy.

Kill not but have regard for life.--Buddha.

Los Angeles, California 1912

by Emil Edward Kusel.

When one meets with adversity and all the world seems bitterly against him or when one realizes the short duration of life and hopes for a splendid immortality, no doubt it is a consolation for many to read the inspired and lofty sentiments of the Bible.

Therefore in writing the following epigrams condemning inhumanity, I felt confident that kindly people would see that it is far from my motive to cast reflection upon any individual inclined to accept the comforting and humane passages of either the Old or New Testament.

I merely aimed to prove the inhuman Mosaical law giving man the idea to kill is not a law of a kind and loving God. I also aimed to prove that the flesh-eating religionist is an accessory to a crime more bestial in the sight of God than any other sin known to the human family.

"Humanitarian Philosophy" has taught me that God and conscience are in unison. I would have liked to condemn the writer for opening my eyes to the truth, but the Lord is on his side.

"Humanitarian Philosophy" is an eye opener for the true religionist who never before thought on the wickedness of killing.

"Humanitarian Philosophy" is a blessing for those who wish to live the Christ life, although it will not appeal to the religionist who is inhumanly self-righteous.

Since digesting "Humanitarian Philosophy" I know a conscientious person can read the stinging truth without a selfish protest. The truth is mighty.

"Humanitarian Philosophy" at first reading made me angry, but praise God, the vegetarian's heart is in the right place.

"Humanitarian Philosophy" is an inspiration.

Have always been very much interested in the subjects of our able ministers, but since receiving a copy of Mr. Kusel's philosophy against flesh eating I am a convert to the doctrine that neither minister nor congregation can be "a child of God" until they are vegetarians.

It is impossible for me to now believe otherwise on account of the tremendous cruelty and horror of taking the life of animals.

I never thought of the truth as Mr. Kusel puts it forth, and I am surprised to think preachers never preached against blood food. I also thought it would be meet and proper to criticise shoe, glove and belt wearing, but the leather using is a secondary proposition; the animal is first killed for food purposes and secondarily to avoid the waste we may utilize the hide, and still we should discourage that argument.

Mr. Kusel is defending God Almighty nobly in his "Humanitarian Philosophy" and has given the church doctrines a slap no man can gainsay.

When we favor meat eating we favor killing, and when we favor killing in the name of God we know we are liars and murderers, for God is kind and loving, and surely opposes the taking of life. Let churches preach the murder of animals, but pray do not say wickedness (killing) is God's will. The world needs more conscientious men like Mr. Kusel to protect God Almighty from defamation.

(From Los Angeles Herald.)

Mr. Emil Edward Kusel,

Dear Mr. Kusel:--I have been wonderfully guided and blessed by reading "Humanitarian Philosophy" as it is truly an inspired work that should be thought upon by all religious people.

The beauty of your blessed reasoning is that you cast all biblical chaff to the four winds and look to God in the true light of love and mercy.

Yes indeed, you show the inconsistency of a religion that gives us an evil right to kill things while every last one of us, without exception, cling to life with the tenacity of a coward.

You fully convince me that false prophets had a hand in writing the Scriptures because God in His Infinite Love could not have created the dear innocent lamb our Savior carried in his bosom to be killed nor could he have created the sweet little baby calf to be slain and eaten by human beings. You convince me that God is not in the slaughter-house, neither in the midst of those who patronize the butcher any more than He is in the heart of the wild beast of prey.

I do believe in a personal God as I could not live without hope for a blissful future life beyond the grave. This pilgrimage, to me, without religion would make this world a very dreary and lonesome place.

Continue Reading →

Emil Edward Kusel opens his 1912 Humanitarian Philosophy with a note disclaiming any intent to mock individuals, yet immediately declares that “the flesh-eating religionist is an accessory to a crime more bestial in the sight of God than any other sin.” The book’s structure—epigrams, testimonial “Kind Words,” and a catechistic Q&A—reflects a combative, conversion-minded purpose. Kusel frames his argument as a corrective to institutional Christianity, which he charges with ignoring the Bible’s own humane passages. The opening pages establish a tone of moral certainty: the author “knows it absolutely” that carnivorous churchgoers are not of God.

Epigrams as Argument

The book begins with a cluster of epigrams from Bible verses and Mary Baker Eddy, then moves into a section titled “Kind Words”—short endorsements from readers. These testimonials describe the work as “an eye opener” and note that it “made me angry, but praise God.” Kusel uses this chorus to preempt criticism and frame his message as a difficult truth. The epigrammatic style recurs throughout, especially in “IN AND BETWEEN THE LINES,” where Kusel strings together Bible verses such as “Be not among eaters of flesh” and “Your stomachs are an open sepulchre.” This technique compresses his argument into memorable, quotable units that resist extended rebuttal.

The Q&A Engine

The central section is a series of pointed questions and answers. Kusel fields objections about animal predation, the Golden Rule, and biblical passages that seem to permit meat-eating. His replies are blunt: “I do not object to anyone eating flesh food—eat whatever you like, but I do point out the wrong of taking life.” He dismisses the argument that animals prey on each other by reminding the questioner of their professed higher morality. The Q&A format allows Kusel to control the terms of debate, reducing complex theological issues to stark binaries. Notably, he refuses to engage with the practical question “What shall we do with all the animals?” by turning it back: “Is that why you eat flesh?”

Scripture as Weapon

Kusel devotes considerable space to quoting and reinterpreting Bible verses. He lists passages often used to justify meat-eating—Mark 7:15, Romans 14:2, 1 Timothy 4:1–4, and Peter’s vision in Acts 10—and implicitly argues that they are misapplied by a “petrified conscience.” His own selections emphasize mercy, the spirit of animals, and the sin of killing. The book’s epigraphs from Buddha and Mary Baker Eddy signal a broader spiritual authority beyond sola scriptura. Kusel’s method is not scholarly exegesis but rhetorical counter-quotation: he pits verse against verse to expose what he sees as hypocrisy.

The Authorial Voice

Kusel writes in a direct, often confrontational first person. He describes his own certainty: “I don’t think it, I know it absolutely.” The book’s fourth edition suggests a sustained campaign; the inclusion of “Kind Words” and “Complimentary” sections implies a community of converts. Yet the author remains the sole voice of authority—no other thinker is cited at length. The prose is repetitive and emphatic, relying on italics and exclamation. This personal, almost sermonic tone gives the work the feel of a manifesto rather than a philosophical treatise. Readers should expect a passionate, uncompromising argument that prioritizes moral clarity over nuance.

Kusel’s Humanitarian Philosophy is best approached as a period document of early twentieth-century religious vegetarian activism. Its structure—testimonials, epigrams, Q&A—mirrors the pamphleteering tradition. Readers interested in the intersection of Christian ethics and animal welfare will find a fervent, if repetitive, case. The book rewards attention to its rhetorical strategies: how Kusel selects and arranges scripture, how he frames dissent, and how he constructs an uncompromising moral identity. It is a work less of philosophy than of persuasion.

Kusel's certainty about diet as prayer made me think of Grandmother’s wooden chair, the one she’d pull close to the stove while reading aloud. The same quiet resolve surfaces in Revolted Woman: Past, present, and to come — Background and Themes, where moral hunger finds its own grammar. Both books spoke to me like a letter left unanswered, but somehow still warm.