Is buying meat compatible with Buddhist ethics?

[Rick O'Shez]

Bearing in mind the focus on compassion towards sentient beings. Bearing in mind the 3-fold rule, Right Intention, Right Livelihood and the first precept.

Please note the question is about buying meat, not eating it.

 

[allfoak]

All things are lawful.
All things may not however, be expedient to the goal at hand.
An act of kindness can take many forms.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I guess a good way to answer that would be to ask oneself if compatibility of the 3 fold rule applies toward buying meat for a starving cat or dog.

 

[ratikala]

namaste

sorry if it sounds like a daft question , ...but why would one buy it if it wasnt to eat it ?..unless one is buying it for someone else to eat ???, ...either way in my opinion , ....no !

unless one lived in an area where no other alternative food source were available, ...

why do you ask ~?

 

[Chakra]

I've heard a lot about the Buddha eating meat...can anyone please clarify if this is true or not?

 

[Kartari]

As an uncompromising vegan myself, the only reason why I would personally even consider buying meat is if it is for someone else. Indeed, this issue comes up more often than I'd care, as my girlfriend, who is vegetarian (she eats eggs), ironically likes to cook and prepare meals including meat dishes for visiting non-vegetarian family and friends. They're not going to be pleased to come if we offer them mung bean sprouts and rice noodles for dinner, so I can certainly understand why one might buy meat in a situation like that.

Is it ethical? In the long run, it seems to me six of one, half dozen another in the case of entertaining guests. They're going to eat it regardless of what you serve, and might stop visiting for dinner if you refuse to prepare or provide meat dishes for them... meaning, going forward, they'd probably be eating meat on nights when you'd have had them over. At least if you buy it yourself, you could even ensure it's organic meat, so at least the animals did not suffer while they were alive.

 

[Kartari]

Hi Chakra,

I've heard a lot about the Buddha eating meat...can anyone please clarify if this is true or not?

The Buddha forbade monks from harming animals, and also from accepting meat dishes that were specially prepared for them. However, he allowed meat eating only if the meat was not specially prepared for them. Bear in mind, though, that the earliest Buddhist monks begged for their food on a daily basis. They had to accept what was given to them. If the animal was already dead, and they are not supporting the killer (e.g. not paying for the food), then they were not directly contributing to its suffering and death.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

...but why would one buy it if it wasnt to eat it ?..unless one is buying it for someone else to eat ???, ...either way in my opinion , ....no !
unless one lived in an area where no other alternative food source were available, ...
why do you ask ~?

It's a question which often comes up, and seems to depend on interpretation of the 3-fold rule, the purpose of which appears to be to prevent the unnecessary killing of animals for food. There seems to be an ethical difference between eating meat which has already been prepared and deciding to buy meat, which will lead directly or indirectly to more animals being killed.
http://dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=3_fold_rule

Also to be considered is the first precept against killing ( and causing to be killed? ), the fact that butchery is considered wrong livelihood, and developing Right Intention, which is being resolved on renunciation, freedom from ill will and harmlessness.

In most Buddhist traditions there is an emphasis on developing compassion. But does that compassion conveniently get put on hold when it comes to dietary preferences?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I guess a good way to answer that would be to ask oneself if compatibility of the 3 fold rule applies toward buying meat for a starving cat or dog.

The question is really about the ethics of our own dietary choices. Do we decide to buy meat when non-meat alternatives are available? If we do buy meat are we just driven by our attachment to meat, or do we consider the consequences of our choices?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Would you also have no problem with someone eating your beloved pet dog or cat?

Yes, these seem to be rather arbitrary cultural norms. In the UK people dote on pet dogs and cats and treat them like a family member, but meanwhile they are happy for countless pigs and cows to be slaughtered so that they can satisfy a dietary preference. A while back there was a big fuss because horse-meat was finding it's way into burgers...odd really, like killing cows is fine but killing those nice horsies is terrible.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I thought that Buddhists ate meat.

Some do, some don't, it partly depends on which school of Buddhism people are involved in.
Years ago when I was involved in Tibetan Buddhism people would argue that it was OK to eat meat because Tibet is very mountainous and growing crops there was difficult. I would observe that we were living in an English city with lots of non-meat options on the local supermarket shelves....

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The Buddha forbade monks from harming animals, and also from accepting meat dishes that were specially prepared for them. However, he allowed meat eating only if the meat was not specially prepared for them. Bear in mind, though, that the earliest Buddhist monks begged for their food on a daily basis. They had to accept what was given to them. If the animal was already dead, and they are not supporting the killer (e.g. not paying for the food), then they were not directly contributing to its suffering and death.

That's right, and the purpose of the 3-fold rule seems to have been to discourage lay-Buddhists from killing animals specifically in order to give the monks meat. The underlying principles seem to involve discouraging unnecessary killing, and developing non-harm as an aspect of Right Intention.

The question for lay-Buddhists is whether to incorporate those principles when it comes to their own dietary choices. Some argue that the 3-fold rule was only for monks, but that could be seen as a cop-out because it denies the principles underlying the 3-fold rule.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I've heard a lot about the Buddha eating meat...can anyone please clarify if this is true or not?

See post #16.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Spiny ji

It's a question which often comes up, and seems to depend on interpretation of the 3-fold rule, the purpose of which appears to be to prevent the unnecessary killing of animals for food. There seems to be an ethical difference between eating meat which has already been prepared and deciding to buy meat, which will lead directly or indirectly to more animals being killed.
http://dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=3_fold_rule

Also to be considered is the first precept against killing ( and causing to be killed? ), the fact that butchery is considered wrong livelihood, and developing Right Intention, which is being resolved on renunciation, freedom from ill will and harmlessness.

for me l am not looking to find any text by which , or which by the twisting of , that l can justify meat eating or animal killing , ...

if lt were that l needed meat to survive then it would be best that l killed it and saved others from the karmic implications of killing , ..

for me there is no differenceas far as the death of the animal goes , between commitimg the act of killing oneself or alowing someone else to kill , ..from the perspective of compassion towards the animal it is the same , meat eating results in the death of an animal , ...

however if we sanction others to kill this to me is a double unkindness as not only is the animal deprived of life but the butcher must carry the consequence of his actions , ...

In most Buddhist traditions there is an emphasis on developing compassion. But does that compassion conveniently get put on hold when it comes to dietary preferences?

personaly l feel it to be better that we develop 'fewness of wishes' where or own needs are concerned , ...and 'great compassion' when thinking of the welfare of other beings .

 

[Rick O'Shez]

however if we sanction others to kill this to me is a double unkindness as not only is the animal deprived of life but the butcher must carry the consequence of his actions , ...

Yes, it could be argued that there is some hypocrisy involved in buying meat from a butcher, we are content for wrong livelihood to exist providing we satisfy our dietary preference. We are content for somebody else to kill providing we get some meat on our plate.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

... after all the truth is that nothing is born and nothing dies.

Animals are killed in vast numbers so that people can have some meat on their plate.

 

[ratikala]

Yes, it could be argued that there is some hypocrisy involved in buying meat from a butcher, we are content for wrong livelihood to exist providing we satisfy our dietary preference. We are content for somebody else to kill providing we get some meat on our plate.

''some hypocracy''? .......Total hypocracy !

it is this which surprises me , ...for smeone to comit harm out of ignorance is one thing , but to comit harm knowingly or after having read read the eight fold path , ...just to satisfy the palette , ....no not good !

and to use the lame excuse that monks accept alms which may contain meat , or that tibetans living on baren plateaus are permitted meat or fish , ........you are right to say we have choice , ..neither of the above do .

 

[Chakra]

@Kartari and @Spiny Norman , thanks for the responses. So basically, the Buddhist will eat the meat if the person who the meat was intended for doesn't want to eat it (as a way of honoring the animal). In our modern and western society, would a Buddhist be allowed to eat the meat off a supermarket? The meat wasn't technically made for him or anyone else in mind; just for animal-eaters in general.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

In our modern and western society, would a Buddhist be allowed to eat the meat off a supermarket? The meat wasn't technically made for him or anyone else in mind; just for animal-eaters in general.

Yes, some people make that argument, though buying meat in a supermarket does lead indirectly to more animals being killed because the shelves have to be restocked. You can argue that this isn't a technical breach of the 3-fold rule, but it looks counter to the principles underlying the 3-fold rule. And I would suggest that ethics is all about principles.

Imagine this scenario. Two people buy a turkey for Christmas or whatever. The first person orders a turkey from a local butcher, the second person goes to the local turkey farm and picks a turkey out to be killed. Meanwhile the butcher adds one more turkey to his order with the same turkey farm, so he can meet the first person's turkey order......
You can argue that a turkey wasn't killed specifically for the first customer, though it was for the second. Though in both cases a turkey was killed. It's tricky.

 

[Chakra]

I just think it's a very poor excuse to continue eating meat. No matter what happens, you will still be part of an industry that exploits and slaughters animals. Considering that we are not beggars and mountain-dwellers, the choice seems pretty obvious for me.

What about human meat? I just want to know how far this justification can go. Thanks.

(Although this is a DIR, I hope you guys don't mind me asking questions.)