I respect ahimsa, but I may undervalue the notion of ahimsa because it does not discriminate between a human life or soul and an animal life (I personally believe animals have a spirit but not a soul). I can understand the karmic purpose that underlies it. To me, there is a clear distinction between animals and humans that I have to admit runs directly to my own religious beliefs.
In my opinion, animals and plants which are edible have been a blessing given to us that require careful stewardship. Animals deserve humane treatment, but they are not human and do not rise to the level of sanctity of human life.
Even ahimsa places limits upon itself. While Jainists attempt to not injure plants whenever possible, they admit that it is necessary to use some violence to use plants for food in order to preserve human life. In this, they have created a hierarchy of life that, for some reason, discriminates between plants and animals and humans, but refuses to make a similar distinction between animals and humans. Now, I understand that animals are far closer to humans than plants are, but there are distinctions that I believe ahimsa refuses to recognize. At its basic essence, how is violence toward a plant any different than violence toward an animal in regards to preserving human life? This apparent contradiction is one major reason I have a problem with ahimsa.
I am not attempting to dissuade anyone from using ahimsa to guide their life, I am simply laying out why I don't value it as highly as others.
BGM
Eight Belles
Moderator: Moderators
Well we cut straight to where our differences lie, and why it has manifested itself in different opinions on the larger (or smaller, as it may be) issues. I do believe that animals (and plants and rocks) have souls, insomuch as I can even explain what a soul is.BGM wrote:I respect ahimsa, but I may undervalue the notion of ahimsa because it does not discriminate between a human life or soul and an animal life (I personally believe animals have a spirit but not a soul). I can understand the karmic purpose that underlies it. To me, there is a clear distinction between animals and humans that I have to admit runs directly to my own religious beliefs.
It is not indiscriminate, however, as there are higher and lower forms of life.To quote OutKast: "Baby's gotta eat!" Like I said, I (and other followers of ahimsa) do not believe that life is some hunky-dory Shangri-La. Life is a cycle of birth and death. We all have to eat things to survive. The Lion eats the Gazelle, the horse eats oats, etc. Some yogis believe you can reach a place of spiritual attainment where you can live on air alone. They speculate that Jesus himself did this for 40 days in the desert, as many other highly dedicated Essenes have.Now, I understand that animals are far closer to humans than plants are, but there are distinctions that I believe ahimsa refuses to recognize. At its basic essence, how is violence toward a plant any different than violence toward an animal in regards to preserving human life? This apparent contradiction is one major reason I have a problem with ahimsa.
But...even that was just for 40 days, and most of us can't do that sort of thing. We need to eat. And so the plants and animals we eat are part of the circle of life and death. Indeed, we will become nourishment to plants and animals when we die as well.
Plants are a simpler, lower form of life. Some animals are simpler, lower forms of life than others. Humans are the highest form of life, or have the most potential (but seldom live up to it). Those dedicated to ahimsa only eat what they need to, which are lower forms of life such as plants and micro-algae, micro-organisms, etc.
I have no problem with the lion eating the gazelle, the croc eating the wildebeest, etc. Though our bodies aren't geared toward eating meat, I don't even have a problem with responsible meat-eating humans. When it exceeds what is necessary, and becomes symptomatic of greed, gluttony, blood-lust, etc., it's a problem. And....mostly it's a problem.
Since you believe in responsible stewardship of animals, BGM, I trust that your own carnal desires are tempered by this, and you do not eat any commercial meat from slaughterhouses, opting only for local, organic meat that has been humanely raised.
I hope that answers some of your questions. Veganism is firmly against the exploitation of animals, and we likewise disagree on this point, since you believe our burden is only to treat them kindly as we exploit them.
Unfortunately, I do not have such control of my carnal desires. Food is my greatest vice.Colinito wrote:
Since you believe in responsible stewardship of animals, BGM, I trust that your own carnal desires are tempered by this, and you do not eat any commercial meat from slaughterhouses, opting only for local, organic meat that has been humanely raised.
I do thank you for a stimulating metaphysical/philisophical discussion.
BGM
"You can't be a real country unless you have a beer and an airline. It helps if you have some kind of a football team, or some nuclear weapons, but at the very least you need a beer." - Frank Zappa
"Life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on life -- This is necessary"
Humans are higher than all other animals on the food chain in so much as we can use tools and reasoning (to a greater extent than all other animals). Humans evolved with a set of teeth suitable for eating both plants and animals and so that's what we do. I think to deny this is to deny your instincts.
Many animals are treated inhumanly because they are treated as a food source. You can "nice it up" if you want to if it makes you feel better but at the end of the day we raise and kill animals for that purpose. Doing so is not "humane".
I think by taking away that food source you would cause major problems for the human food supply. In my opinion one of the reasons humans have come as far as they have is that we can eat damn near anything. It's a lot easier to survive when you can do that. Not all humans have the option of heading down the local piggly-wiggly and picking up "non meat" items. I think people in "civilized" society tend to forget that there are cultures out there that don't have the resources to consider animals "non-food".
Be that as it may, it doesn't give humans the right to give unnecessary strain to another animal. For example; I don't agree with hunting for sport -- It's outdated and worthless when we're already raising animals for food (Which we started doing because hunting was such a pain in the ####).
Just because you have the ability to control something doesn't mean you have to flex your muscle and show your dominance. IMO that's what those kinds of "sports" do.
Regardless if it be racing horses for your entertainment. Killing various animals for your entertainment. Etc, Etc. You're putting unnecessary strain on another living being.
Humans are higher than all other animals on the food chain in so much as we can use tools and reasoning (to a greater extent than all other animals). Humans evolved with a set of teeth suitable for eating both plants and animals and so that's what we do. I think to deny this is to deny your instincts.
Many animals are treated inhumanly because they are treated as a food source. You can "nice it up" if you want to if it makes you feel better but at the end of the day we raise and kill animals for that purpose. Doing so is not "humane".
I think by taking away that food source you would cause major problems for the human food supply. In my opinion one of the reasons humans have come as far as they have is that we can eat damn near anything. It's a lot easier to survive when you can do that. Not all humans have the option of heading down the local piggly-wiggly and picking up "non meat" items. I think people in "civilized" society tend to forget that there are cultures out there that don't have the resources to consider animals "non-food".
Be that as it may, it doesn't give humans the right to give unnecessary strain to another animal. For example; I don't agree with hunting for sport -- It's outdated and worthless when we're already raising animals for food (Which we started doing because hunting was such a pain in the ####).
Just because you have the ability to control something doesn't mean you have to flex your muscle and show your dominance. IMO that's what those kinds of "sports" do.
Regardless if it be racing horses for your entertainment. Killing various animals for your entertainment. Etc, Etc. You're putting unnecessary strain on another living being.
Brian, for what it's worth, I don't eat a vegan diet for health reasons. In fact, my doctor told me it's stupid to not to eat fish. I just smiled, figured he may well be correct, and changed doctors. Like I said, I feel cleaner (spiritually, if not physically) eating this way.BGM wrote: Unfortunately, I do not have such control of my carnal desires. Food is my greatest vice.
I do thank you for a stimulating metaphysical/philisophical discussion.
BGM
I'll tell you this, though, if I lived where my wife grew up in rural Indiana, I'd have a heck of a time eating like this, because like you, I LOVE to eat. In fact, that's one of the great things about a vegan diet -- it might not be the healthiest diet, but at least you can eat like a pig and not get fat.
How can anyone "follow their instincts" and stay monogomous for 50-60 years. One of the things that make humans great is that we have the brains NOT to follow our instincts, when higher values are involved.Cliff wrote:"Life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on life -- This is necessary"
Humans are higher than all other animals on the food chain in so much as we can use tools and reasoning (to a greater extent than all other animals). Humans evolved with a set of teeth suitable for eating both plants and animals and so that's what we do. I think to deny this is to deny your instincts.
If there weren't consequences for cheating on your significant others most people wouldn't be monogamous (many people still aren't).DanAS1 wrote: How can anyone "follow their instincts" and stay monogomous for 50-60 years. One of the things that make humans great is that we have the brains NOT to follow our instincts, when higher values are involved.
People stay monogamous for 50-60 years because it benefits them in some way I'd say 95% of the time and not necessarily because of their set of values.
You don't cheat on your significant other because you care for them and you know it'd hurt them and in many cases because you have no need for another mate. It can also directly effect your livelihood.
In other words; in many cases not being monogamous can cause you to lose everything you've worked your life to earn. You can call that "survival instinct" I guess ... which overrides the instinct to mate with every good looking woman (or man as the case may be) in sight that will allow it.
Last edited by Cliff on Tue May 06, 2008 12:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
VikingMachine
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 5063
- Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 3:12 pm
- Location: Park Rapids, MN
So you dont follow a vegan diet for "health reasons", just not to get fat?DanAS1 wrote: Brian, for what it's worth, I don't eat a vegan diet for health reasons. In fact, my doctor told me it's stupid to not to eat fish. I just smiled, figured he may well be correct, and changed doctors. Like I said, I feel cleaner (spiritually, if not physically) eating this way.
I'll tell you this, though, if I lived where my wife grew up in rural Indiana, I'd have a heck of a time eating like this, because like you, I LOVE to eat. In fact, that's one of the great things about a vegan diet -- it might not be the healthiest diet, but at least you can eat like a pig and not get fat.
-
VikingMachine
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 5063
- Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 3:12 pm
- Location: Park Rapids, MN
Truly, we're mindful of consequences before we act in a manner that seems to go against our animalistic nature, but we also are mindful of a sense of "right" and "wrong.' You'd surely agree that a lot of people would act monogomously even if they felt like cheating and were convinced that they wouldn't get "caught."Cliff wrote:[If there weren't consequences for cheating on your significant others most people wouldn't be monogamous (many people still aren't).
Similarly, there are various consequential benefits to a vegan diet, but it also seems "right" to many of us who do it. The point that I was trying to make in my earlier post was to illustrate the multiplicity of reasons for eating that way, and to point out that it is far from clear that veganism represents the healthiest possible diet. (Though there are surely worse, much worse.)
Given the rate of Divorce in this country I don't know ...DanAS1 wrote: Truly, we're mindful of consequences before we act in a manner that seems to go against our animalistic nature, but we also are mindful of a sense of "right" and "wrong.' You'd surely agree that a lot of people would act monogomously even if they felt like cheating and were convinced that they wouldn't get "caught."
It also begs the question where do your sense of right and wrong come from? There are a lot of people who feel they're being constantly monitored by a supreme power. If that's the case one could never actually "get away with it". It's hard to say what they'd do if they didn't feel that way ...
People who believe they have souls hold their souls in even higher regard than their physical body.
That's fine ... I wasn't responding to any one person when I made my post. It was just my view of the world.Similarly, there are various consequential benefits to a vegan diet, but it also seems "right" to many of us who do it. The point that I was trying to make in my earlier post was to illustrate the multiplicity of reasons for eating that way, and to point out that it is far from clear that veganism represents the healthiest possible diet. (Though there are surely worse, much worse.)