Is meat eating immoral? Is plant eating sinful?

[Subhankar Zac]

Vegetarian diet is extremely advocated in Dharmic faiths.
In Hinduism, it's a diverse set of idea though many Hindus prefer a strict lacto-vegetarian diet.
Other philosophies such as Jainism and Buddhism too supports it strongly.

But which one is Adharma? Which should be acceptable?

 

[निताइ dasa]

Well as a Vaishnav Hindu, I believe that we should try and live in a way that reduces harm to all living beings. Killing animals involves causing them alot pain, and that we why some Hindu schools say that meat eating is wrong. We Vaishnavs also have another interesting outlook. For us, all food carries with it sin. Even eating vegetables carry with it sin, because you are destroying the tiny bacteria present on the vegetables (who actually have souls). So even vegetarian food is not karma free. That is why we offer all our food to the Lord first, because by offering it to the Lord. Lord Krsna says in the Gita, that whomever offers Him anything with love and devotion He will accept. However, the Lord accepts only those things in sattva guna, which include vegetables,milk etc. Other vegetables like onions and garlic are in raja guna so we don't use them in our cooking. Meat is in tamo guna, because it involves killing and causing pain, and therefore the Lord does not accept that.

However what the Lord does accept, we Vaishnavs treat with great pride. The Prasad (leftovers) of the offerings made to the Lord, are considered non-different from the Lord Himself, and by eating one gets immense spiritual growth. Even Lord Shiva is hungry for this prasad! Before eating Prasad, with sing the following bhajans:

maha-prasade govinde
nama-brahmani vaisnave
svalpa-punya-vatam rajan
visvaso naiva jayate

For those who have amassed very few pious activities, their faith in maha-prasad, in Sri Govinda, in the Holy Name and in the Vaishnavas is never born.

sarira avidya-jal, jodendriya tahe kal,
jive phele visaya-sagore
tar' madhye jihva ati, lobhamoy sudurmati,
ta ´ke jeta kathina samsare

O Lord, this material body is a place of ignorance, and the senses are a network of paths leading to death. Somehow, we have fallen into this ocean of material sense enjoyment, and of all the senses the tongue is most voracious and uncontrollable. It is very difficult to conquer the tongue in this world.

krishna baro doyamoy, koribare jihva jay,
sva-prasad-anna dilo bhai
sei annamrita pao, radha-krishna-guna gao,
preme dako chaitanya-nitai

But You, dear Krishna, are very kind to us and have given us such nice prasadam, just to control the tongue. Now we take this prasadam to our full satisfaction and glorify Their Lordships Sri Sri Radha Krishna, and in love call for the help of Lord Chaitanya and Lord Nityananda.

All vegetarian guys

 

[Subhankar Zac]

Well as a Vaishnav Hindu, I believe that we should try and live in a way that reduces harm to all living beings. Killing animals involves causing them alot pain, and that we why some Hindu schools say that meat eating is wrong. We Vaishnavs also have another interesting outlook. For us, all food carries with it sin. Even eating vegetables carry with it sin, because you are destroying the tiny bacteria present on the vegetables (who actually have souls). So even vegetarian food is not karma free. That is why we offer all our food to the Lord first, because by offering it to the Lord. Lord Krsna says in the Gita, that whomever offers Him anything with love and devotion He will accept. However, the Lord accepts only those things in sattva guna, which include vegetables,milk etc. Other vegetables like onions and garlic are in raja guna so we don't use them in our cooking. Meat is in tamo guna, because it involves killing and causing pain, and therefore the Lord does not accept that.

However what the Lord does accept, we Vaishnavs treat with great pride. The Prasad (leftovers) of the offerings made to the Lord, are considered non-different from the Lord Himself, and by eating one gets immense spiritual growth. Even Lord Shiva is hungry for this prasad! Before eating Prasad, with sing the following bhajans:

maha-prasade govinde
nama-brahmani vaisnave
svalpa-punya-vatam rajan
visvaso naiva jayate

For those who have amassed very few pious activities, their faith in maha-prasad, in Sri Govinda, in the Holy Name and in the Vaishnavas is never born.

sarira avidya-jal, jodendriya tahe kal,
jive phele visaya-sagore
tar' madhye jihva ati, lobhamoy sudurmati,
ta ´ke jeta kathina samsare

O Lord, this material body is a place of ignorance, and the senses are a network of paths leading to death. Somehow, we have fallen into this ocean of material sense enjoyment, and of all the senses the tongue is most voracious and uncontrollable. It is very difficult to conquer the tongue in this world.

krishna baro doyamoy, koribare jihva jay,
sva-prasad-anna dilo bhai
sei annamrita pao, radha-krishna-guna gao,
preme dako chaitanya-nitai

But You, dear Krishna, are very kind to us and have given us such nice prasadam, just to control the tongue. Now we take this prasadam to our full satisfaction and glorify Their Lordships Sri Sri Radha Krishna, and in love call for the help of Lord Chaitanya and Lord Nityananda.

All vegetarian guys

Do you have a secular point of view?
I mean I understand the process here but in general, do you personally have a point based on scientific evidence? So, that I can understand it better?

 

[निताइ dasa]

Do you have a secular point of view?
I mean I understand the process here but in general, do you personally have a point based on scientific evidence? So, that I can understand it better?

Umm, well you can take the moral stance of utilitarianism to support it. Utilitarianism says that we should act in a way as to maximize utility (i.e increase the net happiness of all sentient beings). Since meat eating involves supporting the killing animals (which curtains causing them pain) which is far greater than the pleasure we get from eating meat, it is immoral to eat meat. Its actually the only one of the traditional moral theories which really consider animals as having moral importance independent of human beings.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

Umm, well you can take the moral stance of utilitarianism to support it. Utilitarianism says that we should act in a way as to maximize utility (i.e increase the net happiness of all sentient beings). Since meat eating involves supporting the killing animals (which curtains causing them pain) which is far greater than the pleasure we get from eating meat, it is immoral to eat meat. Its actually the only one of the traditional moral theories which really consider animals as having moral importance independent of human beings.

But then again, plants suffer more pain than animals. The animal even with brutal methods remains alive for a couple of minutes while a plant can suffer the pain for hours.

 

[निताइ dasa]

But then again, plants suffer more pain than animals. The animal even with brutal methods remains alive for a couple of minutes while a plant can suffer the pain for hours.

But plants don't have nervous system, so can they feel pain? I mean they might, but there has been no scientific study to prove so. In terms of what the Vedas say, plants are less consciously evolved than animals.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

But plants don't have nervous system, so can they feel pain? I mean they might, but there has been no scientific study to prove so. In terms of what the Vedas say, plants are less consciously evolved than animals.

Hehe... Told you it's a complicated issue.

Yes, plants do not have neurons or brains but they still can hear and feel.
Michael pollan who's a renowned author and an expert in a field that beings plants and neurology together.
They have analagous structures," Pollan explains. "They have ways of taking all the sensory data they gather in their everyday lives ... integrate it and then behave in an appropriate way in response. And they do this without brains, which, in a way, is what's incredible about it, because we automatically assume you need a brain to process information."

And we assume you need ears to hear. But researchers, says Pollan, have played a recording of a caterpillar munching on a leaf to plants — and the plants react. They begin to secrete defensive chemicals — even though the plant isn't really threatened, Pollan says. "It is somehow hearing what is, to it, a terrifying sound of a caterpillar munching on its leaves."

Pollan says plants have all the same senses as humans, and then some. In addition to hearing, taste, for example, they can sense gravity, the presence of water, or even feel that an obstruction is in the way of its roots, before coming into contact with it. Plant roots will shift direction, he says, to avoid obstacles.

Pollan says they do respond to anesthetics. "You can put a plant out with a human anesthetic. ... And not only that, plants produce their own compounds that are anesthetic to us."

No one can distinctly point out for certain if plants feel pain or not, however science does suggest in some areas that plants can respond to stress and sounds.
So based on these reasons msny claim that plants do feel pain, but hasn't been proven yet.
I await other views.

 

[Terese]

Even eating vegetables carry with it sin, because you are destroying the tiny bacteria present on the vegetables (who actually have souls). So even vegetarian food is not karma free. That is why we offer all our food to the Lord first, because by offering it to the Lord

I didn't know this!

 

[Terese]

Hehe... Told you it's a complicated issue.

Yes, plants do not have neurons or brains but they still can hear and feel.
Michael pollan who's a renowned author and an expert in a field that beings plants and neurology together.
They have analagous structures," Pollan explains. "They have ways of taking all the sensory data they gather in their everyday lives ... integrate it and then behave in an appropriate way in response. And they do this without brains, which, in a way, is what's incredible about it, because we automatically assume you need a brain to process information."

And we assume you need ears to hear. But researchers, says Pollan, have played a recording of a caterpillar munching on a leaf to plants — and the plants react. They begin to secrete defensive chemicals — even though the plant isn't really threatened, Pollan says. "It is somehow hearing what is, to it, a terrifying sound of a caterpillar munching on its leaves."

Pollan says plants have all the same senses as humans, and then some. In addition to hearing, taste, for example, they can sense gravity, the presence of water, or even feel that an obstruction is in the way of its roots, before coming into contact with it. Plant roots will shift direction, he says, to avoid obstacles.

Pollan says they do respond to anesthetics. "You can put a plant out with a human anesthetic. ... And not only that, plants produce their own compounds that are anesthetic to us."

No one can distinctly point out for certain if plants feel pain or not, however science does suggest in some areas that plants can respond to stress and sounds.
So based on these reasons msny claim that plants do feel pain, but hasn't been proven yet.
I await other views.

Like Nitai-Dasa said, plants are conscious. But not as much as animals and humans. All life has an atma, plants are no exception.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Umm, well you can take the moral stance of utilitarianism to support it. Utilitarianism says that we should act in a way as to maximize utility (i.e increase the net happiness of all sentient beings). Since meat eating involves supporting the killing animals (which curtains causing them pain) which is far greater than the pleasure we get from eating meat, it is immoral to eat meat. Its actually the only one of the traditional moral theories which really consider animals as having moral importance independent of human beings.

Not all versions of Utilitarianism are rooted in "happiness," although that was the classical and Bentham's initial formulation of the idea. The "happiness" version is hedonism, which is about seeking pleasure and avoiding pain, but the "utility" version is based on assessment of benefits and costs--which can be to the individual only, any grouping, or "all."

It's quite a jump from maximizing utility/happiness for an individual being, to maximizing utility/happiness "of all sentient beings." There are utilitarian egoists who only look at personal benefit, there are a variety of social utilitarians that look to the benefit/happiness of groups of individual humans, even all humans; and then there are those who extend benefit/happiness to other sentient beings, even all sentient beings; and finally, those who extend the consideration to all life, and even to the nonliving parts of the world. The perspective also depends on whether one is considering immediate benefits/happiness or longer-term, and whether it is subjective or objective.

The statement that the pain of killing animals (and/or plants) is greater than the "pleasure" of consuming them is rooted in certain assumptions about the relative values of humans, animals and plants. It is also rooted in the idea of pleasure, rather than in the idea of benefit--and is therefore about preferences rather than anything remotely objective. If instead we ask about the benefit--the utility--relative to the pain/etc., we may get a different answer, asking killing and eating is not about "pleasure" but about benefits and costs. Recent discoveries and thinking about human origins suggests strongly that modern humans were able to evolve our big brains, language, technology and so on because we started using technology (stone, wood, bone, etc., for tools, skins for protection, and so on, as well as fire) to kill and process both plants and animals, which allowed us to have smaller teeth and jaws, spend less time chewing, have a shorter digestive system than our simian relatives, and so on. Was doing so an increase in "pleasure" for humans, or an increase in "utility" or "benefit" for humans? Is it wrong that humans benefited from this? This line of questioning moves the discussion from observation of facts (and inferences based in facts) to assumptions about preferences.

If one assumes (as many in the west at least do) that the value of humans is greater than the value of any other animals or plants (and certainly greater than nonliving things), then the pleasure/utility/benefit of killing and eating outweighs any pain or harm caused to what we kill and eat. The granting of consideration of non-human interests/pleasure/pain, etc., is an assumption of values that people may legitimately disagree about.

I understand that this is something deeply rooted in the Dharmic religions and cultures, but for many westerners, granting rights and consideration to anything other than humans (and often, not even to all of them) is a relatively new idea.

 

[निताइ dasa]

Not all versions of Utilitarianism are rooted in "happiness," although that was the classical and Bentham's initial formulation of the idea. The "happiness" version is hedonism, which is about seeking pleasure and avoiding pain, but the "utility" version is based on assessment of benefits and costs--which can be to the individual only, any grouping, or "all."

It's quite a jump from maximizing utility/happiness for an individual being, to maximizing utility/happiness "of all sentient beings." There are utilitarian egoists who only look at personal benefit, there are a variety of social utilitarians that look to the benefit/happiness of groups of individual humans, even all humans; and then there are those who extend benefit/happiness to other sentient beings, even all sentient beings; and finally, those who extend the consideration to all life, and even to the nonliving parts of the world. The perspective also depends on whether one is considering immediate benefits/happiness or longer-term, and whether it is subjective or objective.

Yes yes, I completely agree. I was simply stating the classical theory by Benthem and later Mill.

The statement that the pain of killing animals (and/or plants) is greater than the "pleasure" of consuming them is rooted in certain assumptions about the relative values of humans, animals and plants. It is also rooted in the idea of pleasure, rather than in the idea of benefit--and is therefore about preferences rather than anything remotely objective. If instead we ask about the benefit--the utility--relative to the pain/etc., we may get a different answer, asking killing and eating is not about "pleasure" but about benefits and costs. Recent discoveries and thinking about human origins suggests strongly that modern humans were able to evolve our big brains, language, technology and so on because we started using technology (stone, wood, bone, etc., for tools, skins for protection, and so on, as well as fire) to kill and process both plants and animals, which allowed us to have smaller teeth and jaws, spend less time chewing, have a shorter digestive system than our simian relatives, and so on. Was doing so an increase in "pleasure" for humans, or an increase in "utility" or "benefit" for humans? Is it wrong that humans benefited from this? This line of questioning moves the discussion from observation of facts (and inferences based in facts) to assumptions about preferences.

If one assumes (as many in the west at least do) that the value of humans is greater than the value of any other animals or plants (and certainly greater than nonliving things), then the pleasure/utility/benefit of killing and eating outweighs any pain or harm caused to what we kill and eat. The granting of consideration of non-human interests/pleasure/pain, etc., is an assumption of values that people may legitimately disagree about.

I understand that this is something deeply rooted in the Dharmic religions and cultures, but for many westerners, granting rights and consideration to anything other than humans (and often, not even to all of them) is a relatively new idea.

Thanks for this, it is very interesting. I remember I hated Utilitarianism in first year when I studied it, so not must interest to read further on it like Kant or Aristotle. Actually I am not expecting a western audience to treat this very Hindu idea with much acceptance hahaha.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Well, Lord Rama went after the golden deer because Mother Sita wanted its skin. And what was Lord Krishna doing in Prabhasa Kshetra where Jara shot him in the foot? He had gone a-hunting. Non-vegetarianism is not prohibited in Hinduism but is humbly suggested so that we may cause the least pain to our co-denizens in the world. The rest is up to the person and the traditions in his family and community. We are eating much more than what the body can do with. I was on a frugal vegetarian diet for two months recently. I found it very healthy. I felt (real) hunger after many many years. Normally what we feel is hunger for taste as we are accustomed to gorging.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Yes yes, I completely agree. I was simply stating the classical theory by Benthem and later Mill.



Thanks for this, it is very interesting. I remember I hated Utilitarianism in first year when I studied it, so not must interest to read further on it like Kant or Aristotle. Actually I am not expecting a western audience to treat this very Hindu idea with much acceptance hahaha.

Actually, it seems a lot of Westerners who are adopting vegetarianism and veganism are very supportive of considering the rights of at least some animals (insects, for example, are often exempted because they aren't "sentient,"...at least according to several people who have posted on these boards). Plants, bacteria, etc., are often not given any particular consideration either. A whole lot of the "ick" factor seems to be in play in the Western discussions, it seems to me.

Personally, as an animist, I think all living things (and many or all nonliving) are sentient--that's a condition that doesn't buy you a pass in any direction. We kill because we have to in order to survive as living beings; others do it to us, as well--although we've gotten rid of most of the larger ones...

I think we must practice respect and try to minimize our harm to each other and the other-than-human persons in the world--but that's my personal preference...

 

[Aupmanyav]

All vegetarian guys

Oh wow. Now, who prepared all this, Nitai? Some genie? 56 items in all (Chhappan bhog for the Lord)?

 

[निताइ dasa]

Oh wow. Now, who prepared all this, Nitai? Some genie? 56 items in all (Chhappan bhog for the Lord)?

Yes Chhappan bhog. Some madman (or woman) must have prepared it.

 

[Brian Schuh]

I tried fruitarianism for three months back in 1998 C.E. but I could not maintain my weight. I did eat eggs and dairy and grains like bread, and honey. Some fruitarians drink yeast for protein. Milk and honey some claim are inhumane to cows and bees, but it didn't bother me.

Now I eat almost anything.

 

[sayak83]

Vegetarian diet is extremely advocated in Dharmic faiths.
In Hinduism, it's a diverse set of idea though many Hindus prefer a strict lacto-vegetarian diet.
Other philosophies such as Jainism and Buddhism too supports it strongly.

But which one is Adharma? Which should be acceptable?

Well, in future science will certainly make it possible for our descendants to directly photosynthesize from sunlight like the trees. Till then we have to eat plants at least. Fortunately it is becoming possible to grow meat in the lab http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34540193, so I expect killing animal for meat will become superfluous in 50 years or so. Till then, given the immense cultural and biological difficulty in shifting from the kind of food one is used to as a child (the ecology of our gut bacteria that helps in digestion and absorbing nutrition is tuned to our childhood eating habits), we will have to muddle through. Avoid meat if possible, avoid mammmals failing that, try and buy humanely reared and killed animals failing even that.

 

[Jainarayan]

I tried becoming vegetarian in the past, but it was a dismal (and abysmal!) failure. I'm going to try again, with a different mindset, either in stages or cold-turkey (no pun intended). I really do not like the idea of killing animals and eating them. I'm not a fan of how they are raised either. Ideally I'd like to eliminate eggs eventually and do lacto-only. With lacto-only one also has to be careful what cheeses to consume. Some, usually the more expensive and "artisan" cheeses are made with animal rennet. More and more, however, manufacturers are using microbial/veg.-based rennet.

 

[Chakra]

I tried fruitarianism for three months back in 1998 C.E. but I could not maintain my weight. I did eat eggs and dairy and grains like bread, and honey. Some fruitarians drink yeast for protein. Milk and honey some claim are inhumane to cows and bees, but it didn't bother me.

Now I eat almost anything.

Okay, I don't mean to be rude, but fruitarianism is kind of dangerous. You should not have started with that.

 

[Chakra]

Also, even if plants do feel pain like we do, a meat eater will end up indirectly killing more plants than vegans, so it is not exactly clear-cut.