THE MYTHS OF THE TABLE: A SOCRATIC DIALOGUE ON VEGANISM

Part I

Persons of the Dialogue:
SOCRATES, PROTEINUS (a citizen)

Scene:
The Porch of the Lyceum, in the shade of the plane trees.

Myth 1: Humans need meat for complete protein

SOCRATES: Tell me, Proteinus, what brings you to the Lyceum this morning, and why do you wear such a troubled countenance? Surely you are not vexed by the affairs of the city?

PROTEINUS:
No, Socrates, it is not the city that troubles me, but the talk of the city. For everywhere I go, I hear men and women disputing about food, and some say that to live without meat is folly, even dangerous.

SOCRATES:
Ah! The affairs of the table, then, are the cause of your distress. And do you yourself hold that meat is necessary for a good life?

PROTEINUS:
It is said, Socrates, that without meat, a man cannot obtain complete protein, and that his body will wither for want of it.

SOCRATES:
Let us examine this, as we would examine a coin to see if it is true silver. Tell me, what is meant by "complete protein"?

PROTEINUS:
I have heard it said that only meat contains all the amino acids that the body requires, and that plants are lacking.

SOCRATES:
And do you suppose that the gods, in fashioning the bean and the lentil, made them deficient by design, so that only the flesh of animals could complete the work?

PROTEINUS:
I do not know, Socrates, but the physicians and the strong men at the gymnasium say so.

SOCRATES:
Let us call as witness the learned physicians, not of rumor, but of science. I have read in the writings of Marsh and Young, who have studied the matter with care. They report that "a vegetarian diet can easily meet human dietary protein requirements as long as energy needs are met and a variety of foods are eaten" (Marsh KA, 2013). Further, "mixtures of plant proteins can serve as a complete and well-balanced source of amino acids for meeting human physiological requirements" (Young VR, 1994).

PROTEINUS:
But is it not true, Socrates, that plant proteins are "incomplete," and that one must combine them with great cunning?

SOCRATES:
You speak as if the body were a miser, hoarding each amino acid. Yet the body, Proteinus, is a wise steward, drawing on the day’s variety and its endogenous amino-acid pool; there is no need to combine foods within a single meal, for adequacy comes from varied plant sources over the day (Melina V, 2016; Young VR, 1994). Do you not see, then, that the myth of the "incomplete" plant is but a shadow, and not the substance?

PROTEINUS:
It seems so, if these witnesses speak true.

SOCRATES:
Shall we then say that a man must eat meat to live, or rather that he must eat a variety of foods, as the earth provides, to meet his needs?

PROTEINUS:
The latter, Socrates, if reason is to be our guide.

Myth 2: Vegan diets cause nutrient deficiencies

SOCRATES: So much for protein. But what of vitamin B12, which some say is lacking? Tell me, Proteinus, whence comes this vitamin B12 of which the physicians speak?

PROTEINUS: It is found chiefly in animal foods, Socrates, and rarely elsewhere.

SOCRATES: And if men must obtain it, shall they perish without flesh? Or can it be supplied otherwise?

PROTEINUS: The physicians speak of fortified foods and of supplements.

SOCRATES: They do; and the writings of Malhotra and Craig tell us that “micronutrients of special concern for the vegan include vitamins B12 and D, calcium, and long‑chain omega‑3 fatty acids,” yet that these “can be addressed with planning and supplementation” (Malhotra A, 2025; Craig WJ, 2009). Without fortified foods or supplements, severe vitamin B12 deficiency may occur (Koeder C, 2024; ePub 2022); but with them, the house stands firm. Iron and calcium are found in beans, greens, and seeds; omega‑3 may be drawn from flax and walnuts; and those who desire direct EPA and DHA may use microalgal oil, for conversion from ALA varies (Melina V, 2016).

PROTEINUS:
It appears, Socrates, that the fault is not in the plants, but in the neglect of knowledge.

SOCRATES:
You speak wisely. Shall we then say that a vegan diet is by nature deficient, or that it requires the same care as any other, lest the builder be careless?

PROTEINUS:
The latter, Socrates.

Myth 3: Children cannot thrive on a vegan diet

SOCRATES: Now, Proteinus, I hear a third voice, more anxious than the rest: "Children cannot thrive on a vegan diet." What say you to this?

PROTEINUS:
This is the cry of many parents, Socrates, who fear for their young.

SOCRATES: And rightly so, for the care of children is a sacred trust. But let us call again the witnesses of science. In a careful study of Polish children aged five to ten, the investigators found that vegan children had lower LDL cholesterol and lower inflammation, and less fat mass; yet they were, on average, shorter and had lower bone mineral content. Where vitamin B12 and vitamin D were not supplemented, blood levels were low; with appropriate supplementation, these biomarkers are readily corrected; iron status, too, tended to be lower (Desmond MA, 2021). And a review of many studies reports likewise a favorable cardiometabolic profile together with lower ferritin, and warns that bone health requires due provision of calcium and vitamin D (Koller A, 2023). See also Sutter (2021) on nutrient status and growth in vegan children.

PROTEINUS: But are there not risks, Socrates?

SOCRATES: There are; as Müller writes, a vegan diet “can be potentially critical” in the young if energy, protein quality, and long-chain fatty acids are neglected—yet “with proper planning and supplementation, it can be adequate” (Müller P, 2020).

SOCRATES: Consider also the younger children who follow a vegetarian diet: in a large Canadian cohort, there were no meaningful differences in growth or biochemical measures overall, though there were higher odds of underweight—reminding us to attend to energy density and to prudent counsel (Karim SA et al., Pediatrics, 2022).

SOCRATES: Shall we then say that children cannot thrive on plant-based diets, or that they can, provided their guardians are wise—securing vitamin B12, ensuring calcium and vitamin D (by foods, fortification, sunlight as season allows, or supplements), adequate energy and protein, and regular growth and bone monitoring?

PROTEINUS: The latter, Socrates. I see now that many fears are but shadows, and that knowledge is the true nourishment.

SOCRATES: Let us then continue our inquiry, for the greatest good is not in eating or abstaining, but in seeking the truth with care and humility.

References

[End of Part I]

Part II

Persons of the Dialogue: SOCRATES, PROTEINUS

Scene: The Porch of the Lyceum, later that afternoon.

Myth 4: Veganism is 'against nature'

SOCRATES: Since our first inquiries have somewhat cleared the air, Proteinus, let us not be idle; for there are other speeches of the crowd which trouble earnest minds. I hear it said: “Veganism is against nature; for humans evolved to eat meat.” Tell me, then, what is “natural”? Do you call natural what happens everywhere and always, or what our bodies are adapted to in many ways?

PROTEINUS: I mean, Socrates, that men are made for flesh, as the hunters and their fathers before them; and therefore abstaining is against the grain of nature.

SOCRATES: Let us try a distinction, as we did before. Is all the natural good? Or is all the good natural? Or rather, is the good only in part natural, and in part the work of reason? If not all the good is simply “the natural,” then what part of “the natural” attends to the good, and what part does not?

Consider the saliva, which the poets seldom praise but physicians examine. There are writings which show that among peoples whose bread and roots are plentiful, the copies of a certain amylase are many, and among those who eat little starch, fewer; and that this copying accords with the diet, as a city adds gates where traffic flows most (Perry GH, 2007). And not among men only, but in diverse beasts too, the same doubling and redoubling appears where starch is much loved (Pajic P, 2019; open access: PMC6516957). Does not such adaptation suggest, not a single path decreed by nature, but a broad road upon which reason may choose?

PROTEINUS: It seems, Socrates, that nature is more hospitable than I supposed.

SOCRATES: And further, those who set down the positions of the dietetic art declare that “appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful,” and not hostile to human flourishing (Melina V, 2016). Shall we then say that what is “natural” is what accords with reason and with our capacities, rather than a single ancestral habit? If so, vegan practice, when wisely ordered, is not contrary to nature but uses nature as an ally.

PROTEINUS: I am persuaded to think so.

PROTEINUS: Yet many say nature’s decree is meat; how shall we answer them?

SOCRATES: Rather, consider the fields: as different fields require different ploughs, so different peoples, by use and inheritance, are fitted in different measure to their customary foods; and reason is the steward who fits the plough to the soil.

PROTEINUS: I follow.

SOCRATES: If, then, reason attending to nature benefits us, we should call that use of “the natural” good; but if we worship “nature” without reason, we act as builders who honour the stones and neglect the house.

PROTEINUS: It appears so.

SOCRATES: Yet, before we rest content with “nature,” let us examine a snare that hides in fine words. Do you think that whatever is natural is therefore good, and whatever is called “unnatural” is therefore bad?

PROTEINUS: I do not understand you, Socrates.

SOCRATES: I mean this: are not hemlock and plague natural, and also earthquakes and drought? Shall we crown them with laurel because they come of themselves? Conversely, is not the vaccine a craft of reason, and the bridge a child of art? Must we condemn them as “unnatural,” though they save lives and bind cities together?

PROTEINUS: Many speak so, Socrates; they praise the wild spring and condemn the crafted aqueduct.

SOCRATES: You grasp the point. To say “it is natural, therefore it is good,” or “it is unnatural, therefore it is bad,” is not reasoning but adornment--what the masters of argument call an appeal to nature, a deceptive form that swaps description for prescription (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Fallacies; see also IEP: Fallacy overview). And some, going further, try to define the good itself as whatever is “natural,” which the philosopher Moore warned against as a “naturalistic fallacy,” for the good is not captured by any mere natural property (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: G. E. Moore). The lawgivers who speak of “natural law” themselves debate what “natural” should mean, and do not simply leap from what is to what ought to be (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Natural Law Theories).

PROTEINUS: Then to call a thing natural is to say little of its worth; we must still ask whether it is just, healthful, and good.

SOCRATES: Exactly. Nature is a vast storehouse; reason is the steward. If we are to build well, we ought not act as builders who honor the stones and neglect the house.

Myth 5: Plants feel pain, so eating them is just as bad

SOCRATES: Another fear is whispered: “Plants feel pain; therefore eating them is as grievous as eating beasts.” Tell me, Proteinus, what is pain? Is it not a certain perception joined with aversion, rooted in organs fitted to receive and transmit such signals?

PROTEINUS: I do not understand you, Socrates.

SOCRATES: Then we should inquire whether plants have the instruments by which animals perceive—nerves, a brain, centralized structures for experience. The learned botanists argue that plants “neither possess nor require consciousness,” lacking the anatomical and functional substrates that make such experience possible (Taiz L, 2019). Others reviewing the matter conclude that plants have not been shown to perform those proactive, anticipatory behaviors that would require consciousness (Mallatt J, 2020). If, then, plants lack the seat and sinews of felt suffering, equating their use with harming sentient creatures is to confuse life with felt life, and function with experience.

SOCRATES: We deny not life, my friend, but sensation. Poets speak broadly; in inquiry we define. If pain is a signal born of nerves and a brain, where these are absent, how shall felt pain arise?

PROTEINUS: Your distinction is sober and, I think, necessary.

SOCRATES: Let us keep piety toward truth: that which lives is not for that reason a subject of pain; and ethics, if they are to be more than shadows, must reckon with sentience.

PROTEINUS: Then the standard is not bare life, but the power to feel.

SOCRATES: So it seems. And where we doubt, as in matters of heavy and light, we go at once to a weighing; here too we go to anatomy and function, not to metaphor.

Myth 6: Vegan diets are too expensive and elitist

SOCRATES: A sixth complaint remains: “Vegan diets are too costly, a luxury for the few.” Tell me, is price, like other arts, not a kind of science of asking and giving—asking what we require (energy, protein, nutrients) and giving coin accordingly? If so, we must ask rightly: by unit, by calorie, by nutrient. For measures matter, and a wrong measure misleads like a crooked rule. And as, in disputes about heavy and light, we go at once to a weighing machine, so here we go to the reckonings that fit the case—price per calorie and per nutrient. There are studies showing that beans and starchy vegetables—humble though they be—are among the cheapest sources of energy and nutrients when reckoned per 100 calories (Drewnowski A, 2013). And those who watch the purchases of households say legumes are inexpensive, rich in protein and fiber, and gentle upon water and air (Mitchell DC, 2021). Moreover, reckonings that weigh nourishment against cost find dried legumes to be of very low cost per serving while scoring high in nutrient quality (Fayet-Moore F, 2023).

PROTEINUS:
Then perhaps it is not the diet that is dear, but the luxuries—the imported fruits and delicacies which are needless.

SOCRATES:
You anticipate me. For just as a modest cloak keeps a man no worse than a purple robe, so a modest larder—grains, legumes, seasonal greens and seeds—keeps the body well at modest expense. If some make veganism costly, shall we blame the art or the artisan?

PROTEINUS: I am not sure, Socrates; but perhaps the artisan, not the art, is at fault.

SOCRATES: Spoken like a citizen. Let us then lay aside the accusation of extravagance, and hold instead that knowledge and measure make a table both sufficient and frugal. Local prices and access vary; the least‑cost nutritious pattern relies on staples—grains, legumes, and seasonal produce—where available. SOCRATES: Yet whether the just city will make such foods available to all—that, my friend, we must still inquire.

An Interlude: On “What about…?”

SOCRATES: Before we take our rest, let us beware a device of speech that haunts the marketplace. When a man, being questioned, declines to answer, he points elsewhere and cries, “What about that?”—as if the lighting of a second fire would quench the first. The masters of argument rank this among the irrelevant diversions, a red herring; some ally it with the tu quoque; it is now commonly named “whataboutism” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Fallacies; IEP: Fallacy overview).

PROTEINUS: I think I have heard such talk. But how shall we discern it?

SOCRATES: Consider this. One says, “Animal agriculture is a leading cause of greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, and water use; reducing meat consumption would help the environment.” Another replies, “But what of the emissions from airplanes? Let men cease from flying first, and then speak of meat.”

PROTEINUS: He seems not to answer, but to flee.

SOCRATES: Just so. Does the reply address whether animal agriculture harms air and water, and whether lessening it would help? It does not. It drags in air travel—a grave matter indeed—but leaves the first claim standing. Two fires do not quench each other; they burn the more. If both be harmful, we should quench both; and if we must choose by urgency or tractability, we must compare like with like—emissions per person, per choice, per day—not exchange the question for another. To set a different wrong in the place of the one under judgment is not refutation but evasion (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Fallacies; IEP: Fallacy overview).

PROTEINUS: Then the cure is to return to the first question and answer it, and only then to set the second in order.

SOCRATES: You speak as a physician of arguments. Let us learn to keep questions to their proper subject, to compare when comparison is asked, and to remedy evils without pretending that the presence of one excuses another.

SOCRATES: We have inquired whether vegan practice is against nature, whether plants feel pain as beasts do, and whether the purse forbids abstention; and we have found, if our witnesses and reasons are sound, that these fears are not masters but servants to be put in their place. Shall we continue, Proteinus, with the further speeches that remain among the people?

PROTEINUS: Lead on, Socrates; for the marketplace is noisy with opinions, and I would gladly exchange noise for knowledge.

SOCRATES: Let us then pause here, not as though we had reached the end, but as those who rest between questions.

References (Part II)

[End of Part II]