Is Vegetarianism integral to a moral life.

[want to be hindu]

Every religion has a "code of ethics" and they may not all be the same. That does not mean they are unethical, just differences of opinion.

I resect any one of any faith as long as he/she is a good neighor. I am not telling anyone that you must give up meat. I am saying the following:

It is better to ride a bike then drive a car. ( I drive a car )

It is better to recycle.

It is better to be a Vegetarian.

Honestly, right now, you guys aren't sounding any different than the Christian Fundamentalists that hold up signs telling everybody that walks past them that they're going to Hell.

Hindus dont believe in an eternal Hell.

 

[Comicaze247]

Comic-caze,

If you don't bulk at the idea of a lobster being boiled alive, a cow having his horns ripped off and marked with a hot iron press, sheep and chicken being kept in very closed spaces, that they can hardly breathe, then how do you expect me to think you are compassionate? Your compassion is limited in my opinion.

You are assuming that I don't cringe at the idea of animal cruelty, just like you assume that all people who eat meat are not compassionate, which is extremely rude (by the way, I voted FOR California prop 2, improving the conditions for animals bred for consumption).

Again an enlightened sage like Buddha did not eat meat, I wonder why?

You seem to be forgetting that he was raised a Hindu, so that was already in his belief system before he was Enlightened. And Buddha is not the only Enlightened being.

A value that one should be compassionate to animals can only come from a person who is compassionate. Hence many vegetarians are also anti-war.

So anyone who eats any meat is not compassionate? I'm anti-war, and I eat meat. I believe that we should be compassionate to animals, but I also don't deny the fact that we are at the top of the food chain for a reason, I just think there should be a more humane way of putting them down for food.

Seriously, the world is NOT black and white.

 

[Comicaze247]

I resect any one of any faith as long as he/she is a good neighor.

You were also accusing Pagans of being bad ones.

Hindus dont believe in an eternal Hell.

I know that, and I never said you did. I'm merely showing that Suraj (not you) is displaying the same kind of "black and white" attitude that the Christian Fundamentalists do.

 

[Surya Deva]

So anyone who eats any meat is not compassionate? I'm anti-war, and I eat meat. I believe that we should be compassionate to animals, but I also don't deny the fact that we are at the top of the food chain for a reason, I just think there should be a more humane way of putting them down for food.

Who said we are at the top of the food chain? Put a human being in a cage with a bear, a tiger, a lion, an elephant and watch who really is at the top. We are fragile, vulnerable things, a bear simply need to smack us and we'll be in a coma. You see how subjective this is? It is all based on conditions and how one defines the conditions is subjective and based on ones interest. How do you explain the mass genocide in the world, where blacks were massacred by the colonialists; native Americans were butchered, aborgines were exterminated, Hindus were killed in their millions by Arabs and colonialists, millions of jews killed in gas chambers? It is based on exactly the same idea: limiting your compassion. As long as you limit your compassion, you leave hate open and that hate can be directed at anyone based on your interest.

But if you take compassion as an ideal and thus it is not limited, then you cannot have hate, but your compassion subsumes all. This logic is impeccable and this is why Hindus were vegetarians. It is not a belief or opinion, it is based on logic. It is similar to Kant's categorical imperative. As long as we act from being we are cannot hate anything, but when we act from interest, we condition it according to our interests.

 

[want to be hindu]

You were also accusing Pagans of being bad ones.

No I did not.

 

[Valjean]

Hominids would never have proliferated, perhaps not survived the pleistocene, if they had not learned to eat meat.
We do not photosynthesize, we don't have the dentition or digestive systems to graze or even browse. We learned to compensate for our lack of specialized dentition, claws, speed, &c with tools. We expanded our limited digestive range with fire. But it was when we moved North out of Africa and learned to exploit the Pleistocene megafauna that we really took off.

We moved out of the tropics and colonized the rest of the world. A rare, endangered species of ape, that had been struggling at the brink of extinction for two or three million years, experienced an unprecedented proliferation when it learned to exploit the ice age megafauna.
Carnivory became the dharma of hominids. I believe it remains the dharma of those now rare groups of people that still live a Pleistocene lifestyle.

However, a lot has changed since then. We developed alternative cultural strategies: Horticulture, Pastoralism, Agriculture, Civilization, &c. Our dharma diversified with our new cultural options, though our prosperity remained rooted in the exploitation of animals.

Today we have the option of moving higher on the Maslovian scale. We can survive without exploiting other sentients -- ourselves not the least.

It is no longer considered proper to enslave an out-group of humans, or to 'steal' the resources of other 'tribes' by force. Our ideas of morality are changing to include out-group individuals. The benefit of the tribe is no longer the prime moral directive. Out-group compassion has become feasible. We can move beyong "Natural," (AKA: Pleistocene).

I believe a might-makes-right, self-centered morality is an atavism and should be discouraged. I think an expanded morality of kindness and compassion is now possible and should be encouraged. It seems to me to be a natural progression.

 

[Comicaze247]

Who said we are at the top of the food chain? Put a human being in a cage with a bear, a tiger, a lion, an elephant and watch who really is at the top. We are fragile, vulnerable things, a bear simply need to smack us and we'll be in a coma.

This is where I assert my belief where we are not supposed to be at the top of the food chain. We are only at the top because we manipulate our environment to our advantage. We are at the top in the sense that nothing really preys on us (hell, it's proven that most animals hate the way we taste).

You see how subjective this is? It is all based on conditions and how one defines the conditions is subjective and based on ones interest. How do you explain the mass genocide in the world, where blacks were massacred by the colonialists; native Americans were butchered, aborgines were exterminated, Hindus were killed in their millions by Arabs and colonialists, millions of jews killed in gas chambers? It is based on exactly the same idea: limiting your compassion. As long as you limit your compassion, you leave hate open and that hate can be directed at anyone based on your interest.

What do these atrocities have to do with the food chain? You seem to be implying that I forgive these atrocities. Are you suggesting people who eat meat hate animals?

But if you take compassion as an ideal and thus it is not limited, then you cannot have hate, but your compassion subsumes all. This logic is impeccable and this is why Hindus were vegetarians. It is not a belief or opinion, it is based on logic. It is similar to Kant's categorical imperative. As long as we act from being we are cannot hate anything, but when we act from interest, we condition it according to our interests.

I know some vegetarians that are pretty hateful. I will say again: The world =/= black and white.

 

[Comicaze247]

No I did not.

My mistake, that was Suraj as well, haha.

 

[Surya Deva]

What do these atrocities have to do with the food chain? You seem to be implying that I forgive these atrocities. Are you suggesting people who eat meat hate animals?

No I am not. I think I have made myself very clear.

It is based on exactly the same idea: limiting your compassion. As long as you limit your compassion, you leave hate open and that hate can be directed at anyone based on your interest.

But if you take compassion as an ideal and thus it is not limited, then you cannot have hate, but your compassion subsumes all.

What about this don't you understand? If you have not made the connection yet, you are probably unaware of history. The justification for genocide was Social darwinism in the colonial age, the blacks, hindus, native americans, aborigines were all considered to be a sub-human species, thus they were treated like animals. The same label was put on the jews by the Nazis. So what this illustrates that if if you condition your compassion, where only some are within your locus, you can justify genocide, slavery etc. That is because you leave hate open, which then can be directed at anyone. But if you have an ideal, which has no limitation, everything is included in your compassion.

Seyorni has explained the same thing. As long we decide to be compassionate based on self interests, there will always be someone who we are not compassioanate to. Thus why we kill. We create our own suffering through our barbarism.

 

[Comicaze247]

The justification for genocide was Social darwinism in the colonial age, the blacks, hindus, native americans, aborigines were all considered to be a sub-human species, thus they were treated like animals. The same label was put on the jews by the Nazis. ]So what this illustrates that if if you condition your compassion, where only some are within your locus, you can justify genocide, slavery etc. That is because you leave hate open, which then can be directed at anyone. But if you have an ideal, which has no limitation, everything is included in your compassion.

Seyorni has explained the same thing. As long we decide to be compassionate based on self interests, there will always be someone who we are not compassioanate to.

Those were bastardizations of Darwinism, twisting the words. The people who did that had convince themselves of those things in order to justify it. I don't view animals as below me, but I still eat them. Those don't have to go hand in hand. We are equals, just living different paths in different bodies. Not all meat eaters view animals as lower. Lower on the food chain maybe, but not lower as beings. Hate has nothing to do with eating animals.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Because animal life has a central nervous system that feels pain. Humans dont need meat so why do they need to hurt other beings ? It is only for personal pleasure.

I take offense to this statement. I eat meat but I take no personal pleasure in the pain of another creature. Your accusation is rooted in hatred.

I support any person's choice to become a vegetarian, I think it's wonderful that someone can overcome the desire to eat meat. But the human animal is an omnivorous creature, designed to eat vegetable matter and flesh. Choosing not to eat meat is a spiritual choice but it is not the natural condition for a human being. I think this makes the choice to become vegetarian that much more special, you are choosing to go against the animal nature and achieve a higher state of being. But to say those of us who choose to remain in the more natural condition are evil or sadistic is, well, it's evil and sadistic.

 

[want to be hindu]

I take offense to this statement. I eat meat but I take no personal pleasure in the pain of another creature. Your accusation is rooted in hatred.

If you read my body of comments on this subject. You will find that I hold no bad feelings for folks who eat meat. The pleasure I was talking about was the pleasure of taste not sadism. I do not think that people who eat meat enjoy being cruel to other beings.
:no:

I am sorry for any hurt feelings do to my poor communication skills.:sorry1:

 

[Surya Deva]

Those were bastardizations of Darwinism, twisting the words. The people who did that had convince themselves of those things in order to justify it. I don't view animals as below me, but I still eat them. Those don't have to go hand in hand. We are equals, just living different paths in different bodies. Not all meat eaters view animals as lower. Lower on the food chain maybe, but not lower as beings. Hate has nothing to do with eating animals.

It goes without saying that if one will partake of killing an animal for their taste gratification, that they see them as lower and insignificant creatures.

As I said earlier the human animal has far too much pride. It thinks it can do anything it wants to animals, and then cries foul when its karma returns back on it. A savage race that kills millions of animals every year, is surely going to kill its own as well. The killing is not going to stop until we stop endorsing killing of animals. I am sorry I have no sympathy for a meat-eater, when they have a choice between vegetarian food and non vegetarian food, where the latter involves the killing of animals, why on earth would they choose the latter? Selfishness and a complete disregard for life.

 

[Comicaze247]

It goes without saying that if one will partake of killing an animal for their taste gratification, that they see them as lower and insignificant creatures.

*facepalm* Apparently you enjoy viewing the world in black and white (which always inspires hate, mind you). Good luck with that.

As I said earlier the human animal has far too much pride. It thinks it can do anything it wants to animals, and then cries foul when its karma returns back on it. A savage race that kills millions of animals every year, is surely going to kill its own as well. The killing is not going to stop until we stop endorsing killing of animals.

*facepalm*

I am sorry I have no sympathy for a meat-eater, when they have a choice between vegetarian food and non vegetarian food, where the latter involves the killing of animals, why on earth would they choose the latter? Selfishness and a complete disregard for life.

*sigh* I guess horseblinders aren't limited to anyone. You're the first Hindu I've encountered that has such a black and white attitude about things. It's sad, really.

 

[Caladan]

I'm always puzzled when people go on some fantasy crusade for a supposedly social enlightenment. if people truly want to better society, there are real issues to be taken care off first, such as finding cures for fatal diseases, discovering alternative fuels, fighting terrorism and supporting the weak links of society. some how I just don't see claiming that Wendy's is the gate to hell as high on the list of problem solving.
Now, non of this contradicts that it is desirable to keep improving the treatment of animals in the food industry and in general, it just means, that vegetarianism is a personal choice, and in most cases not even a choice but a religious tradition, and not necessarily a choice that springs from a higher state of intimate understanding of life. of course in the west it is different and people mostly make it out of pure personal choice.
Btw, trying to promote it with scientific claims is sort of like the trend to attribute scientific facts to the Qur'an. no one is going to try and stop you from being vegetarian, in return you may find the common courtesy not to 'proselytize' your own personal belief. being informed on animal cruelty and abuse is important, but making the jump into propagating avoiding eating animals all together is a connection I cant make.

 

[want to be hindu]

I'm always puzzled when people go on some fantasy crusade for a supposedly social enlightenment. if people truly want to better society, there are real issues to be taken care off first, such as finding cures for fatal diseases, discovering alternative fuels, fighting terrorism and supporting the weak links of society. some how I just don't see claiming that Wendy's is the gate to hell as high on the list of problem solving.

It is not just the the nuts who want to be socially enlightened who say the world needs to cut down on meat eating. Its a study done by the UN who said this.

“Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems,” senior UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) official Henning Steinfeld said. “Urgent action is required to remedy the situation.”
Cattle-rearing is also a major source of land and water degradation, according to the FAO report, Livestock’s Long Shadow–Environmental Issues and Options, of which Mr. Steinfeld is the senior author.
“The environmental costs per unit of livestock production must be cut by one half, just to avoid the level of damage worsening beyond its present level,” it warns.


Read this to find out more

Rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gases than driving cars, UN report warns




If you dont want to believe this it is your right. Just like its Sarah Palin right not to believe that Climate Change is man made.( At the same time I hope someone with her beliefs never will become the leader of the free world) I dont believe in converting anyone to vegetarianism but all of us must cut back on eating meat. I can give study after study yet people still dont believe theres a problem. Denial is not just a river in Egypt. Do you also believe that the UN Food and Agriculture Organization is also on a fantasy crusade. If its only a problem with the UN many other studies have been done that I can show you. To say that this subject is not a real issue is both rude and uninformed.

 

[Caladan]

It is not just the the nuts who want to be socially enlightened who say the world needs to cut down on meat eating. Its a study done by the UN who said this.

“Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems,” senior UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) official Henning Steinfeld said. “Urgent action is required to remedy the situation.”
Cattle-rearing is also a major source of land and water degradation, according to the FAO report, Livestock’s Long Shadow–Environmental Issues and Options, of which Mr. Steinfeld is the senior author.
“The environmental costs per unit of livestock production must be cut by one half, just to avoid the level of damage worsening beyond its present level,” it warns.


Read this to find out more

Rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gases than driving cars, UN report warns




If you dont want to believe this it is your right. Just like its Sarah Palin right not to believe that Climate Change is man made. I dont believe in converting anyone to vegetarianism but all of us must cut back on eating meat. I can give study after study yet people still dont believe theres a problem. Denial is not just a river in Egypt. Do you also believe that the UN Food and Agriculture Organization is also on a fantasy crusade. If its only a problem with the UN many other studies have been done that I can show you. To say that this subject is not a real issue is both rude and uninformed.

You seem to fail to understand that the root of this problem is not that people eat meat, but that the world has transitioned into a sedentary life style.
you also made a rant instead of a coherent logical reply. if you read my post you would see that I made it clear that being informed on the food industry is important, I dont appreciate you putting words and thoughts into my mouth and mind, now THAT is rude.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

You seem to fail to understand that the root of this problem is not that people eat meat, but that the world has transitioned into a sedentary life style.
you also made a rant instead of a coherent logical reply. if you read my post you would see that I made it clear that being informed on the food industry is important, I dont appreciate you putting words and thoughts into my mouth and mind, now THAT is rude.

Very nicely put!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It goes without saying that if one will partake of killing an animal for their taste gratification, that they see them as lower and insignificant creatures.

How do you figure?

Personally, I think the whole "lower"/"higher" paradigm when it comes to species is messed up, so I don't try to make these sorts of distinctions... and I certainly see my sustenance as very significant: I depend on it to live.

 

[want to be hindu]

You seem to fail to understand that the root of this problem is not that people eat meat, but that the world has transitioned into a sedentary life style.

I think if we were talking about Heart Disease you would be right about the sedentary life style.
We are talking about total environmental meltdown . Due to striping of world of its Natural Resources and the biggest cause of this environmental damage is eating meat.It is not only Beef but fish is a real problem also. .

A recent major study predicted that all commercial fisheries could die out by
2050. This four-year analysis is the first to examine all existing data on ocean species and ecosystems in order to understand the importance of biodiversity at the global scale. The results revealed that the global trend is a serious concern and projects the collapse (90% depletion) of all species of
wild seafood that are currently being fished by the year 2050.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Summary for Policy makers.

you also made a rant instead of a coherent logical reply.

It was somewhat of a rant but I hope it was coherent.

if you read my post you would see that I made it clear that being informed on the food industry is important, I dont appreciate you putting words and thoughts into my mouth and mind, now THAT is rude.

I was responding to this comment you made.

I'm always puzzled when people go on some fantasy crusade for a supposedly social enlightenment. if people truly want to better society, there are real issues to be taken care off first, such as finding cures for fatal diseases, discovering alternative fuels, fighting terrorism and supporting the weak links of society. some how I just don't see claiming that Wendy's is the gate to hell as high on the list of problem solving.

I know I am being harsh but I think it is needed.This is a very large problem that needs to be fixed.