One page and half analytic paper of the philosophical passage of Montaigne double spaced

I need an explanation for this Philosophy question to help me study.

“I am not sorry that we note the barbarous horror of such acts, but I am very sorry that while judging their faults rightly we are so blind to our own. I think that there is more barbarity in eating a man alive than in eating him dead, in lacerating by rack and torture a body still full of feeling, in having him bitten and mangled by dogs and pigs (as we have not only read about but have seen in recent memory, not among enemies in antiquity but among neighbors and fellow citizens and, what is worse, on the pretext of piety and of religion) than in roasting him and eating him after his death.” (“Of Cannibals”, p. 93)

The exegesis papers are your attempt to explain and interpret a difficult or striking passage from a text we are studying. Please follow the guidelines below for your papers.

1. Papers are to be submitted as a physical copy no more than one week after we have discussed the text in class.
2. The passage you are writing about should be at the beginning of your response. Quote the passage as a single-spaced block quotation without quotation marks. The author, text, and page or section number of the passage should be cited in parentheses at the end of the passage. See the example below:

The causality of reason in the intelligible character does not arise or start working at a certain time in producing an effect. For then it would itself be subject to the natural law of appearance, to the extent that this law determines causal series in time, and its causality would then be nature and not freedom. Thus we could say that if reason can have causality in regard to appearances, then it is a faculty through which the sensible condition of an empirical series of effects first begins. For the condition that lies in reason is not sensible and does not itself begin. Accordingly, there takes place here what we did not find in any empirical series: that the condition of a successive series could itself be empirically unconditioned. (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, A551/B579–A552/B580)

3. Your own response should be double-spaced. It should be no longer than two printed pages total, including the passage quoted at the beginning.

4. Your task is to explain the passage in detail by drawing out clearly the central concepts or claims (explicit or implied), and situating the passage in the broader argument of the text in which it appears. The fundamental aim of this assignment is to interpret the text, not to evaluate it.