the great vegetarian debate

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
seeker242
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:01 am

Re: Not a vegan debate.

Post by seeker242 »

ihrjordan wrote:
But as I read on I came across these few lines: "When one buys factory farm-raised meat, one is supporting factory farms monetarily and thereby encouraging their unnecessary cruel practices. The only way to avoid actively supporting factory farms is to stop purchasing their products."
While not the first time I've read this defense, it dawned on me that I've never came to a satisfactory conclusion in regards to the previous statement;
I think that's because the only satisfactory conclusion is to conclude that it's not appropriate to purchase products from those places. The idea that there is somehow a flaw in the above argument, is really indefensible because it's actually is a very sound argument.
What I don't get is that even though desiring meat is bad in the eyes of the afforementioned lay buddhists and Dhamma common sense as all desiring will inevitably lead to suffering; how is it any worse than say desiring a fruit smoothy or tofu?
It's worse because desiring a fruit smoothy causes much less harm to others, than meat does.
According to the philosopher in question when we buy meat, we support the machine that murders them. Well if this is the case don't we also support mistreatment of migrant farm workers, less food for animals who don't have the physiollogy necessary to consume meat, and severe top soil errosion of Queen Gaia? What then is the distinction? Why can't I go out and buy Kfc if I please?
What creates the distinction is the amount of harm being caused by the activity. If one activity causes a lot of harm and another activity causes a little bit of harm, and you could easily choose either one, it's ethically appropriate to choose the latter.

:anjali:
User avatar
ihrjordan
Posts: 850
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:42 am

Re: Not a vegan debate.

Post by ihrjordan »

Mkoll wrote:I don't know much about economics, but I would think that this is a simple matter of supply and demand. If there's a demand for meat, people go into business to supply it and that involves the slaughter of animals as a matter of course. If demand goes down, supply will follow and fewer animals will be slaughtered.
Wtith your previous statement then, you'd agree that desiring baked chicken is no more unwholesome than desiring a fruit smoothy? Even though the desire for meat supposedly breeds animal slaughter (I'm still not convinced that it does either) of which by implication we can say is on equal footing with the negative effects of top soil errosion, worker mistreatment etc?
David N. Snyder wrote: The First Precept is to not kill or cause to kill.

Some Buddhists follow a vegetarian diet to better practice the first precept and not contribute to the killing of animals.
Is that really the first precept? I don't remember reading that although it can be deduced via various other rules and teachings, and it's certainly debatable as to whether buying meat in and of itself without the intention of causing harm, but simply providing your family with sustenance from meat which has already been killed is "causing others to kill." This is what I want to know.

These are two different issues. If this were really the case, why did the Buddha allow his monks to eat meat at all if the act of simply eating it caused others to kill?
Coyote wrote: Perhaps because of two reasons. Firstly, meat cannot, by it's very nature, be consumed without entailing the death of an animal. So no matter how animals are farmed and processed, even without those problematic side-effects you mention, it will always entail the death of an animal.
Secondly, those problematic side-effects of meat production are hidden. When you buy a piece of meat you can clearly see that it is the flesh of a dead animal. That's not the case when it comes to the mistreatment of workers, top-soil erosion, ect.

Where did you read this? From my understanding vege Buddhist don't generally argue that desiring meat is immoral, or more wrong than desiring anything else. It's rather more to do with reducing the amount of deaths caused by meat production and contributing to the decline of said meat production, out of compassion for the animals killed. Supply and demand, as others have mentioned.
Which brings us back to the basic question of why the Buddha would allow the consumption of choice cuts if it truly did support the slaughter machine.

Where did I read it? Well other than your very statements "Buddhist don't generally argue that desiring meat is immoral, or more wrong than desiring anything else." and this :"It's rather more to do with reducing the amount of deaths caused by meat production and contributing to the decline of said meat production"

Not trying to be antagonistic but didn't you just contradict what you said in two consecutive statements? If stopping meat consumption supposedly frees more beings from pain and suffering, how then can we say that Buddhist don't generally put a value judgement based on what desire has manifested? whether it be for kfc or tofu?

And I'll mention that Retrofuturist says in The great vegatarian debate that he doesn't "desire meat" in much the same way that the Bhikku sangha doesn't, as do many others in that thread. I also remember watching a video by Bhante Yuttadhammo in which he says the optimal route to take is to refrain from "desiring meat" of which he wasn't necessarily clear as to what that entailed because he says it could be acceptable to go and out and purchase it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zisXgVnv-cI" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
seeker242 wrote:It's worse because desiring a fruit smoothy causes much less harm to others, than meat does.
Says who? This is the common asumption and of course we can say that "desiring meat is bad" but that's the equal case with everything! And so if "desiring meat" held a special place amongst those things of which we should not seek out because it leads to countless suffering then why wouldn't the Buddha at least say to his lay followers "Ok kind of take it easy on the meat guys" But he didn't do this, now I don't think he would want his lay support to be accumulating all kinds of bad merit by feeding the beef machine...right?
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17187
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Not a vegan debate.

Post by DNS »

ihrjordan wrote: When did I say to never mention meat?
The topic title is: "Not a vegan debate"

The first post has in bold and all caps:

PLEASE NO ARGUMENTS FOR WHETHER EATING MEAT IS WRONG OR PAS, THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS POST IS ABOUT.

Twice.

Based on the posts, it still looks like a vegetarian debate; again as mentioned, this has all been discussed in the great vegetarian debate. Unless this is somehow not a vegetarian debate, then this will be merged with that great veg. debate thread.

Back to topic, see this great piece which objectively looks at both sides:

To Eat Or Not to Eat Meat
User avatar
ihrjordan
Posts: 850
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:42 am

Re: Not a vegan debate.

Post by ihrjordan »

David N. Snyder wrote:
ihrjordan wrote: When did I say to never mention meat?
The topic title is: "Not a vegan debate"

The first post has in bold and all caps:

PLEASE NO ARGUMENTS FOR WHETHER EATING MEAT IS WRONG OR PAS, THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS POST IS ABOUT.

Twice.

Based on the posts, it still looks like a vegetarian debate; again as mentioned, this has all been discussed in the great vegetarian debate. Unless this is somehow not a vegetarian debate, then this will be merged with that great veg. debate thread.

Back to topic, see this great piece which objectively looks at both sides:

To Eat Or Not to Eat Meat
I still fail to see where I said, as you claim, "never mention meat." I am not asking if eating meat is wrong..which is why I put in all caps NO ARGUMENTS FOR WHETHER EATING MEAT IS WRONG OR NOT. I am questioning the commonly held belief that "desiring meat" according to a lot of Buddhists is in fact morally corrupt. I'm not really sure how I can explain it any clearer.
User avatar
ihrjordan
Posts: 850
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:42 am

Re: Not a vegan debate.

Post by ihrjordan »

And those two headings "Not a Vegan debate" and "No posts as to whethereating meat is wrong or not." Certainly don't state to "never mention meat" and not once was this implied or said in all my post.
User avatar
ihrjordan
Posts: 850
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:42 am

Re: Not a vegan debate.

Post by ihrjordan »

And in response to your link. I am not asking that.
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17187
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Not a vegan debate.

Post by DNS »

ihrjordan wrote: I still fail to see where I said, as you claim, "never mention meat." I am not asking if eating meat is wrong..which is why I put in all caps NO ARGUMENTS FOR WHETHER EATING MEAT IS WRONG OR NOT. I am questioning the commonly held belief that "desiring meat" according to a lot of Buddhists is in fact morally corrupt. I'm not really sure how I can explain it any clearer.
Why would someone desire meat unless they wanted to eat it? And if they want to eat it, then this is about meat eating vs. vegetarianism.
User avatar
ihrjordan
Posts: 850
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:42 am

Re: Not a vegan debate.

Post by ihrjordan »

David N. Snyder wrote:
ihrjordan wrote: I still fail to see where I said, as you claim, "never mention meat." I am not asking if eating meat is wrong..which is why I put in all caps NO ARGUMENTS FOR WHETHER EATING MEAT IS WRONG OR NOT. I am questioning the commonly held belief that "desiring meat" according to a lot of Buddhists is in fact morally corrupt. I'm not really sure how I can explain it any clearer.
Why would someone desire meat unless they wanted to eat it? And if they want to eat it, then this is about meat eating vs. vegetarianism.
You're closer, but still kind of missing my point. I'm not focusing on consumption at all as I said in my OP, that I'm pretty certain that the actual act of eating meat is not morally reprehensible. It's important to distinguish between the WANT of the meat (which is the point of my post) and the actual manifested act of which is not the target subject.
Meggo
Posts: 159
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 2:42 pm

Re: Not a vegan debate.

Post by Meggo »

ihrjordan wrote: I'm not focusing on consumption at all as I said in my OP, that I'm pretty certain that the actual act of eating meat is not morally reprehensible. It's important to distinguish between the WANT of the meat (which is the point of my post) and the actual manifested act of which is not the target subject.
I think your problem lies in thinking that there is an isolated act of anything, which you can distinguish. There isn't. As everything is interconnected a separation into individual concepts like desire, eating or meat is artificial. I think it will be more helpful if you try to figure out, why YOU want a certain act (eating meat) or a certain desire (desire for meat) to be separated from all the rest, thus giving it a particular identification, which you then can value as you prefer.
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17187
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Not a vegan debate.

Post by DNS »

ihrjordan wrote: It's important to distinguish between the WANT of the meat (which is the point of my post) and the actual manifested act of which is not the target subject.
Okay, so you are just focusing on the desire, the want part.

As with any action, the thought of wanting or desiring anything becomes wholesome or unwholesome based on the action. If the action is unwholesome, then the desire / thought for it would also be unwholesome, albeit perhaps a less weighty kamma.

So if meat purchasing contributes to the killing of animals (big debate, I know and I believe it does, however others disagree), then purchasing meat becomes unwholesome, then desiring it would also be unwholesome, albeit a less weighty kamma than actually going to the grocery store, looking for meat and purchasing it. And of course less weighty kamma than killing the animal yourself so that you can eat it. Note this is much different from a monastic who does not desire it and does not purchase it. We are talking about lay people who have the power to make a choice, not monks and nuns.

Perhaps a similar situation to the monks for lay people might be children living at home who make no special desires about their food but are at the whims of the food cooked by other family members. And they do not purchase the food that is eaten since they are dependent children.

If meat purchasing does not contribute to the killing of animals, then desiring it would have no bad kammic effects.
User avatar
ihrjordan
Posts: 850
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:42 am

Re: Not a vegan debate.

Post by ihrjordan »

David N. Snyder wrote: As with any action, the thought of wanting or desiring anything becomes wholesome or unwholesome based on the action. If the action is unwholesome, then the desire / thought for it would also be unwholesome, albeit perhaps a less weighty kamma.
Maybe according to pre-Buddhist ideas of what karma constituted, but I would disagree that this is what the Buddha himself taught.

"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect." AN 6.63

If the action determined whether or not it was unwholesome, then accidentally stepping on insects would cause bad merit, which if we are to believe the Buddha it does not. In the same way that someone can intend to kill someone via the actual want to kill which arises only through the intending mind, even if they don't actually attain that end, then they still accumulate unwholesomeness.
So if meat purchasing contributes to the killing of animals (big debate, I know and I believe it does, however others disagree), then purchasing meat becomes unwholesome, then desiring it would also be unwholesome, albeit a less weighty kamma than actually going to the grocery store, looking for meat and purchasing it.
Well why wouldn't the Buddha give his lay followers some special admonition in regards to purchasing and seeking meat if it's so unwholesome? And I know that desiring meat is unwholesome, that is also not really the point. I want to know why "desiring meat" specifically, according to popular opinion, is especially heinous.
And of course less weighty kamma than killing the animal yourself so that you can eat it.
I agree. I can understand why killing an animal to attain an end is especially unwholesome but not simply wanting to eat dead meat.

In effect, my question is the same as the whole masturabation vs sex negative karmic value question that's occasionally raised.
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17187
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Not a vegan debate.

Post by DNS »

ihrjordan wrote: If the action determined whether or not it was unwholesome, then accidentally stepping on insects would cause bad merit, which if we are to believe the Buddha it does not. In the same way that someone can intend to kill someone via the actual want to kill which arises only through the intending mind, even if they don't actually attain that end, then they still accumulate unwholesomeness.
Correct, the action plus the intent. Accidentally stepping on insects, then there is no intent. However, one does not accidentally purchase meat.

"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect." AN 6.63
User avatar
ihrjordan
Posts: 850
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:42 am

Re: Not a vegan debate.

Post by ihrjordan »

However, one does not accidentally purchase meat.
Right you are. But one does not on the other hand purchase meat wishing for animals to die. :jumping:
User avatar
ihrjordan
Posts: 850
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:42 am

Re: Not a vegan debate.

Post by ihrjordan »

And just to be a stickler, but I feel I must since you said it twice. But it's a lot more appropriate to say Intention + action as according to buddhist phenomenology you can't make an action period without intent to drive it.
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6594
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

Re: Not a vegan debate.

Post by Mkoll »

ihrjordan wrote:
Mkoll wrote:I don't know much about economics, but I would think that this is a simple matter of supply and demand. If there's a demand for meat, people go into business to supply it and that involves the slaughter of animals as a matter of course. If demand goes down, supply will follow and fewer animals will be slaughtered.
Wtith your previous statement then, you'd agree that desiring baked chicken is no more unwholesome than desiring a fruit smoothy?
All other things being equal, yes I'd agree. But keep in mind this is from the point of view of the basic defilements of the mind.
ihrjordan wrote:Even though the desire for meat supposedly breeds animal slaughter (I'm still not convinced that it does either) of which by implication we can say is on equal footing with the negative effects of top soil errosion, worker mistreatment etc?
That doesn't follow from what I'm trying to say. I'm having a hard time thinking of a way to explain it better, but what I'm talking about is the basic defilement of greed for pleasant tastes in the mind. That's it. Nothing more. If the greed is of equal strength when its object is the taste of steak or hummus, then it's of an equally unwholesome nature. From the perspective of the mind, it's the same greed. Edit—to use an easy-to-understand analogy: whether a person's craving for the appearance attractive men and/or women is for people with dark skin, medium skin, light skin, or anything in between, what underlies it the same greed for pleasant sights. Whether it's greed for steak or hummus, it's the same underlying greed for pleasant tastes. Do you get what I mean and why what I just quoted from you is a related-but-different discussion?

You seem to want to have a discussion that is beyond this nucleus and I'm happy to have it. Only, any discussion of that sort is a continuation of the great vegetarian debate so here we go:

~~~
ihrjordan wrote:Even though the desire for meat supposedly breeds animal slaughter (I'm still not convinced that it does either)
What convinces you of that? Can you come up with some reasons against my economic argument of supply and demand?
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Post Reply