In terms of logic and not the Buddha's teachings, if one had to eat meat, it would probably be better to go to the forest and hunt wild game rather than store bought meat. Buying store bought meat contributes to the factory farming industry.* There are numerous documentaries reporting about the horrid conditions animals are raised in and how they are basically slaves from birth to the slaughter house. Wild game on the other hand, lives out their natural lives up until the point the hunter kills them. I don't hunt and never have hunted and don't advocate it, but strictly speaking from an ethical position for animals, the meat from game animals probably involves less suffering to the animals. Of course it violates the First Precept from a Buddhist perspective, though. And the best option is still in my opinion to just go vegetarian or vegan, if one is able.D1W1 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 6:02 amAs far as Buddhist ethics goes, it's intention that matters. Buddhist ethics is not personal value, fashion, etc. As a person who lives in the different time than Buddha's my logic tells me there is difference between greed over meat that comes from farmed factory animals and greed over meat that comes from animals that live in the wild. What do you think guys, is there any difference in terms of unwholesomeness?
* The causal connection is often debated but it's really not that complicated:
100 people buy whole chickens from a supermarket one day.
Later that day the grocer requests 100 more slaughtered chickens from the slaughter house to be delivered.
Later as time goes on, meat demand drops.
50 people buy whole chickens from a supermarket in an average day.
Later that day the grocer requests only 50 more slaughtered chickens from the slaughter house to be delivered.
That's 50 less chickens killed at the slaughter house due to the less demand from that grocer.
And so on, either upwards or downwards in demand . . .