Why I'd argue meat-eating in and of itself isn't immoral

[Rainbow Mage]

I'd argue that meat-eating isn't necessarily immoral, and here's the reason why. One- even in nature animals eat each other, but they don't take on any of the karmic consequences, because they don't think about the result. Remember what Krishna said in the Gita about slaying and not receiving karma from it.

Two- All things flow into each other. If you devour an animal you are still taking it into yourself. You are merging the essence of the animal with yourself, breaking it down and absorbing the energy and nutrients. Destruction is also part of the natural cycle of the way/dharma.

Animals devour each other and I don't see how that's any more or less moral then humans doing so. Humans are also animals. To me it's more how much does the animal suffer when it's slaughtered?

Thoughts?

 

[Koldo]

You are pretty much correct. But the problem here is that many of us do have the choice of not eating animals. This is what differs humans from other animals, whereas many animals need to eat meat because there is nothing else for them to eat, we don't need to.

 

[Penumbra]

I'd argue that meat-eating isn't necessarily immoral, and here's the reason why. One- even in nature animals eat each other, but they don't take on any of the karmic consequences, because they don't think about the result. Remember what Krishna said in the Gita about slaying and not receiving karma from it.

Some animals eat each other in the womb (like some sharks), or kill offspring of their rivals (like some lions), or refuse to nurture their offspring and let them die (many animals).

"Moral" and "Immoral" don't apply to them, but that doesn't mean humans can use them as arguments to do the same. Humans should think in terms of human ability and understanding.

Two- All things flow into each other. If you devour an animal you are still taking it into yourself. You are merging the essence of the animal with yourself, breaking it down and absorbing the energy and nutrients. Destruction is also part of the natural cycle of the way/dharma.

I wouldn't be cool with a bear trying to eat me. I don't want to merge with its essence. So I don't see why a pig or cow would be cool with me killing it and allowing it to merge with my essence.

Animals devour each other and I don't see how that's any more or less moral then humans doing so. Humans are also animals.

See above. Basing morality on other animals that are much less intelligent and in some cases, much less compassionate or empathetic than ourselves is not likely to get us far.

If one is going to put forth arguments for why eating animals is moral, they should at least utilize reason rather than appeals to the lowest common denominator. For instance, one might argue that in a cold climate where it's impossible to grow plants year-round, respectfully killing animals may be necessary. Vegetarianism is a bit of a luxury, because either the right conditions are needed or enough resources to circumvent the wrong conditions are needed.

To me it's more how much does the animal suffer when it's slaughtered?

To me that is the number one thing as well. That's why I consider factory farming to be significantly worse than hunting in most cases.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Ah, while what you said is true Penumbra, I'm arguing from a more dharmic perspective. People of dharmic paths often argue people shouldn't eat meat for some of the reasons I listed- karma, destruction of life, etc.

 

[Penumbra]

Ah, while what you said is true Penumbra, I'm arguing from a more dharmic perspective. People of dharmic paths often argue people shouldn't eat meat for some of the reasons I listed- karma, destruction of life, etc.

In Dharmic religions, animals typically aren't considered very high on the rebirth/reincarnation cycle. It's generally not considered a realm where those with good karma are reborn or reincarnated.

Why look to them for morality?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Not necessarily morality Penumbra, but less deviance from the natural way. Dharmic paths also believe if a person can be detached from the fruits of their actions and act by their nature it's more in line with the natural law. Animals actually deviate less from the natural way then humans do.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Don't take my personal views though as speaking for all dharmics. I've said before, some of my views are rather tantric. I don't necessarily see destruction as always being bad, but as sometimes being necessary. Some in dharma look down on tantric views.

 

[Penumbra]

Not necessarily morality Penumbra, but less deviance from the natural way. Dharmic paths also believe if a person can be detached from the fruits of their actions and act by their nature it's more in line with the natural law. Animals actually deviate less from the natural way then humans do.

Yes, but in Karma Yoga, where one performs actions but detaches their self from the fruits of those actions, they generally strive to perform good actions rather than bad actions. They perform the necessary work that is generally meant to improve one's surroundings according to their Dharma.

The actions that they detach themselves from aren't meant to inflict needless suffering, or they've missed the point. Their actions are meant to be wholesome.

In many Dharmic religions, the "natural way" is the illusion. Animals are in the illusion. People are in the illusion.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Yes, but in Karma Yoga, where one performs actions but detaches their self from the fruits of those actions, they generally strive to perform good actions rather than bad actions. They perform the necessary work that is generally meant to improve one's surroundings according to their Dharma.

The actions that they detach themselves from aren't meant to inflict needless suffering, or they've missed the point. Their actions are meant to be wholesome.

In many Dharmic religions, the "natural way" is the illusion. Animals are in the illusion. People are in the illusion.

Well Penumbra but karma yoga also extends to actions many would call bad or destructive as shown in the Gita when Arjuna hesitated to do battle with those close to him. Krishna did not applaud him for his hesitation, instead he chastised him and said that Arjuna hesitating was a great sin against his dharma. That if one understands the true reality, they cannot kill or cause to kill.

 

[no-body]

Necessary evil, I try not to think about it as I know it's hypocritical.

I'd argue if you want to follow the Dharmic path without going totally vegan or vegetarian you would raise and/or hunt the animal yourself before you slaughtered it and gave thanks, etc.

Or at the very least make sure it was processed in a facility where it is killed humanely and not injected with chemicals. We are too far removed from our food in today's world. People would rather not think the food like substance they just ordered used to have a face.

 

[Penumbra]

Well Penumbra but karma yoga also extends to actions many would call bad or destructive as shown in the Gita when Arjuna hesitated to do battle with those close to him. Krishna did not applaud him for his hesitation, instead he chastised him and said that Arjuna hesitating was a great sin against his dharma. That if one understands the true reality, they cannot kill or cause to kill.

Arjuna was an archer and it was his Dharma to fight for good causes. He was on the righteous side of the battle. (At least as far as the story goes.)

And some like Gandhi interpret that as being metaphorical rather than a real battle anyway. Generally I find such views rather naive, but then again, I'm not a historical expert on ancient Indian cultural context.

Killing a person for no good reason would not be in his Dharma. Killing an animal when one doesn't need to likely wouldn't be in anyone's Dharma.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Penumbra it depends how one approaches the dharma. As I said, I approach some of it in a very tantric way.

 

[EverChanging]

Penumbra it depends how one approaches the dharma. As I said, I approach some of it in a very tantric way.

How does this make it okay to eat animals killed in inhumane ways in polluting, environmentally destructive factory farms because you like the taste of meat when you could thrive on a vegetarian or vegan diet of plant forms that didn't suffer and can be produced with less damage to our environment? Why would it be in someone's dharma to eat in an environmentally unsustainable way if a much better alternative way of eating is available?

If a group of people has been a part of a given natural area for generations, and they hunt to survive, this is a normal part of the ecosystem there. That picture doesn't, however, resemble most of us post-industrialization citizens of the world.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

How does this make it okay to eat animals killed in inhumane ways in polluting, environmentally destructive factory farms because you like the taste of meat when you could thrive on a vegetarian or vegan diet of plant forms that didn't suffer and can be produced with less damage to our environment? Why would it be in someone's dharma to eat in an environmentally unsustainable way if a much better alternative way of eating is available?

If a group of people has been a part of a given natural area for generations, and they hunt to survive, this is a normal part of the ecosystem there. That picture doesn't, however, resemble most of us post-industrialization citizens of the world.

Not all meat from all sources are killed in inhumane factory farms, and besides the point, in the Buddha's dharma anyway, meat-eating is not prohibited, but killing the animal yourself or attending the slaughter is. The reason for this is that you receive no karma in this way. Also, look at it like this, a few people abstaining from meat won't stop them from slaughtering animals. We live in a carnivorous society.

Edit: Oh yeah, and to re-state, from a tantric perspective destruction and chaos are also aspects of the dharma. Do you deny that destruction is part of the natural order from observing nature?

 

[EverChanging]

Not all meat from all sources are killed in inhumane factory farms, and besides the point, in the Buddha's dharma anyway, meat-eating is not prohibited, but killing the animal yourself or attending the slaughter is. The reason for this is that you receive no karma in this way. Also, look at it like this, a few people abstaining from meat won't stop them from slaughtering animals. We live in a carnivorous society.

It's very likely that any meat you may be consuming -- if you are not a vegetarian or vegan -- came from an inhumane and polluting source. Meat eating is not unconditionally prohibitive in Buddhism, and yet refraining from meat consumption when it is possible -- it's actually quite easy in the United States -- is preferable. Refraining from unnecessary killing and eating of animals is a part of ahimsa. To cause another creature to suffer when you could easily thrive on a non-meat diet cannot be in accord with ahimsa. As for rules about karma, I would advise to be careful of superstition and thinking that as long as you follow some abstract rules you won't obtain karma. All I can say about karma is that everything is effected and interrelated to everything else, and that includes our food choices. It affects the entire web.

I do not accept the argument that we should not be concerned about our food choices just because society is greedy and carnivorous. Certainly those on vegetarian and vegan diets will not stop all the slaughtering of animals, but each vegetarian and vegan save a significant number of animals every year by not consuming their flesh and thus creating more need for more breeding and more slaughtering. Vegetarian and vegan diets are also more friendly to our environment than huge factory farms, which emit tons of CO2 and require extensive clearing of forests to raise large numbers of CO2 emitting cattle.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Well Ever-Changing you may call my beliefs about karma "superstitious", but it's what the Buddha taught, who was himself a meat-eater. Eating meat is not out of sync with ahimsa, seeing as many Buddhists in many Buddhist countries eat meat. Ever been to a Chinese, Japanese, etc. eating place where they don't eat meat? It's always been voluntary to abstain from meat in Buddhism.

 

[EverChanging]

Well Ever-Changing you may call my beliefs about karma "superstitious", but it's what the Buddha taught, who was himself a meat-eater. Eating meat is not out of sync with ahimsa, seeing as many Buddhists in many Buddhist countries eat meat. Ever been to a Chinese, Japanese, etc. eating place where they don't eat meat? It's always been voluntary to abstain from meat in Buddhism.

The Buddha honored vegetarianism, but in line with the middle way, would eat alms consisting of meat if that is what he was dependent on. Beggars can't be choosers. But you're not a beggar, or most people who eat lots of meat are not. Nor are most people in the USA a part of an ecosystem in which they must depend on hunting for survival.

I also have a problem with your rather simplistic notion of ahimsa. You define it strictly by the cultural practices of many Buddhist people, many of which may not be practicing or seriously involved with religion, like many Christians. Each person must view her or his own actions within her or his own context and interrelationship with everything else. You and I are not living in the same culture or circumstances as the Buddha or even most modern Buddhists today. We live in a more globalized world with a huge complicated market, and the choices we make about what we eat and what we consume or pay services for affect everything else. There are many more ramifications to contemplate about the consequences of consuming meat produced in a factory farm than the Buddhist would have had to consider in eating meat as alms. There were no factory farms then.

You really should consider your own unique circumstances in considering the vow of ahimsa rather than turning even the Buddha's actions into unquestionable or even dogmatic norms. I have never known Buddhism to forbid questioning even the Buddha. I think the Buddha probably ate in the way that was right for him, but our circumstances as modern people are entirely different. We should not act as though the norms that worked for him are moral absolutes.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Why should I reconsider when it's perfectly permissible within the Buddha's dharma to eat meat, and monks have always agreed it is by the guidelines I mentioned, even to this day.

 

[EverChanging]

Why should I reconsider when it's perfectly permissible within the Buddha's dharma to eat meat, and monks have always agreed it is by the guidelines I mentioned, even to this day.

As a Buddhist, why would you refrain from questioning the Buddha's dharma and the guidelines you mentioned? Is not this a part of detachment? Just because these guidelines work well in one culture and time period doesn't mean they work well now. You seem to have missed this part of my post:

I also have a problem with your rather simplistic notion of ahimsa. You define it strictly by the cultural practices of many Buddhist people, many of which may not be practicing or seriously involved with religion, like many Christians. Each person must view her or his own actions within her or his own context and interrelationship with everything else. You and I are not living in the same culture or circumstances as the Buddha or even most modern Buddhists today. We live in a more globalized world with a huge complicated market, and the choices we make about what we eat and what we consume or pay services for affect everything else. There are many more ramifications to contemplate about the consequences of consuming meat produced in a factory farm than the Buddhist would have had to consider in eating meat as alms. There were no factory farms then.

You really should consider your own unique circumstances in considering the vow of ahimsa rather than turning even the Buddha's actions into unquestionable or even dogmatic norms. I have never known Buddhism to forbid questioning even the Buddha. I think the Buddha probably ate in the way that was right for him, but our circumstances as modern people are entirely different. We should not act as though the norms that worked for him are moral absolutes.

 

[Gloone]

You should buy a chicken and let it loose in the backyard and chunk rocks at it until you hit one good time to listen to the noise it makes and watch the feathers fly all over the place. Then clean it, and eat it.