Ahimsa dilemma

[anadi]

Hello fellow Dharma practitioners!

Today I was walking down a staircase and found on the stairs a little beetle lying on his back, kicking furiously. He was clearly in a lot of suffering and desperately trying to get back on his feet. So I tried to help him and turn him over, but that couldn't happen because then I saw that one of his legs was injured and was twisted in a very wierd way so he coudln't stand on his feet anymore. I didn't know what to do to help, but in the ending I decided to kill him.

I know this is not in accordance with non-violence. But isn't it better to kill a bug that is clearly suffering and it is also clear that it is no longer capable of a normal life? I remember reading once that what defines a virtuos action is intention. So if intention is good is even breaking the Dharma okay?

I know it's probably obvious, but still I would like to hear what you forumers would say on this topic.

 

[Fireside_Hindu]

Well, my short answer would be yes. If you are acting out of compassion and not "Eew, gross bug, kill it!" then it would be worse to ignore the big and let it just struggle until it dies. But I"m not an expert on Karmic effects. I believe intentions matter, but some terrible things have been done by people with good intentions. I think the only way to be sure is to quietly pray for the insect atman to be a to be at peace and be mindful that if any wrong doing was done, you will learn from the experience and try not to do it again.

:camp:

 

[Vinayaka]

Hello fellow Dharma practitioners!

Today I was walking down a staircase and found on the stairs a little beetle lying on his back, kicking furiously. He was clearly in a lot of suffering and desperately trying to get back on his feet. So I tried to help him and turn him over, but that couldn't happen because then I saw that one of his legs was injured and was twisted in a very wierd way so he coudln't stand on his feet anymore. I didn't know what to do to help, but in the ending I decided to kill him.

I know this is not in accordance with non-violence. But isn't it better to kill a bug that is clearly suffering and it is also clear that it is no longer capable of a normal life? I remember reading once that what defines a virtuos action is intention. So if intention is good is even breaking the Dharma okay?

I know it's probably obvious, but still I would like to hear what you forumers would say on this topic.

You did the right thing. It's sensible. Injured animals with no hope of recovery should be killed. It's not against ahimsa, it's actually humane.

 

[Valjean]

Insects do OK with just five legs. Why did you conclude he was hopelessly disabled?

 

[anadi]

Insects do OK with just five legs. Why did you conclude he was hopelessly disabled?

One of his legs was twisted in such a way that it disabled him to even stand. If you imagine a beetle laying on his back, the injured leg was facing upwards in almost the opposite direction that it should be and wasn't moving. I guess I could have tried to put it back in place or pull it out, but I still think it's safer that he get's a new body isn't it?

 

[Madhuri]

Assuming the creature cannot properly survive in its state, I think that killing it is more compassionate than leaving it alone. To purposefully allow the suffering to continue is more violent than killing it imo.

 

[Knight of Albion]

Bless you for caring.

I think that if a creature is seriously injured, suffering and with no hope of recovery, then - if your motivation is love and a sincere desire to release the poor soul from its pain - then you do not transgress the law by ending said suffering, though you should do this as quickly and humanely as possible.

I sympathize. Often a dilemma, reverence for all creation v mercy ... But if you listen to your heart, it will tell you what is the right thing to do.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Insects do OK with just five legs. Why did you conclude he was hopelessly disabled?

Yes, you could have left it alone to face its karmas. Of course, I have much to answer since I am a non-vegetarian. But my tradition allows it.

 

[Vinayaka]

Nice article by Dr. David Frawley on vegetarianism and non-vegetarian Hindus and tradition... ... Eating of Meat and Beef in the Hindu Tradition

 

[ametist]

Suffering is your perception of the bug. Trying to end 'suffering' without concent isnt ok. You think you would be suffering with one leg missing and copying that image to the bug. Perhaps it was signaling to a bird or a bigger bug to be found and happily eaten. Again perhaps it was signaling to you to work on your images of suffering..but perhaps the bug itself was not suffering at all.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

If the goal is to eliminate suffering (especially meaningless suffering), killing it was the right action.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Perhaps it was a right decision based on a wrong premise. It is the premise which is in question, not the action.

Nice article by Dr. David Frawley on vegetarianism and non-vegetarian Hindus and tradition... ... Eating of Meat and Beef in the Hindu Tradition

Yes, a nice article.

 

[Straw Dog]

Today I was walking down a staircase and found on the stairs a little beetle lying on his back, kicking furiously. He was clearly in a lot of suffering and desperately trying to get back on his feet. So I tried to help him and turn him over, but that couldn't happen because then I saw that one of his legs was injured and was twisted in a very wierd way so he coudln't stand on his feet anymore. I didn't know what to do to help, but in the ending I decided to kill him.

I know this is not in accordance with non-violence. But isn't it better to kill a bug that is clearly suffering and it is also clear that it is no longer capable of a normal life? I remember reading once that what defines a virtuos action is intention. So if intention is good is even breaking the Dharma okay?

Why didn't you build him a little tiny wheelchair, you do-gooder?

Seriously, though, I don't think insects experience the same order of emotional and psychological suffering as humans. Why do you believe that it was clearly suffering? How would we even know what constituted a normal life for it?

 

[LuisDantas]

I know this is not in accordance with non-violence. But isn't it better to kill a bug that is clearly suffering and it is also clear that it is no longer capable of a normal life? I remember reading once that what defines a virtuous action is intention. So if intention is good is even breaking the Dharma okay?

I wonder if someone here can help me find a Dharmic source, but I am fairly certain that intention is not the only relevant factor. Having access to the means (physical, mental and even emotional) to deal with the situation properly is also significant.

And, of course, purity of intention must be balanced with realistic evaluation of the situations we find ourselves in. It is possible to abuse purity of intention by (for instance) using it as a weapon to disturb and pressure others beyond their capabilities, just as it is also possible to abuse realism by failing to nurture the desire for positive change and to make choices that may lead to that change.

In this case, it seems to me that you should take solace in the realization that it is simply not within your power to lead to any better future for the beetle than that of a shortened lifespan. Suffering should be healed if possible, but that is not always an option. That is just a fact of life and we do no one any good by tormenting ourselves with difficulty in accepting it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Many instances in stories. King Shibi asked the eagle to leave the dove and eat his flesh. That was a test. Shibi kept cutting portions of his flesh but it was always less. Of course, in the end God blesses him. King Duleep asks a lion to eat him instead of a cow. Gogaji, in Rajasthan, asks the serpent not to bite a cow but bite him instead. As far as tradition goes, one saves other lives at all costs. This, of course, excludes war if it is in line of 'dharma'. But even then, there are rules, no unnecessary cruelty and no harm to non-combatants and war only from sunrise to sunset. The wounded can be looked after in the night. No attack if an enemy is not equally armed or not ready.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

The idea that insects cannot suffer is very doubtful. Science cannot really answer such questions, but its attempts to do so suggest that insects do suffer:
Do Bugs Feel Pain?

 

[Aupmanyav]

That is why all Indian religions, Jainism in particular, are against any killing. Some of us may be non-vegetarians (blame the tongue), but we do not defend it.