Your occasional reminder.
May all sentient beings be well, happy, and at ease.
Animal injustice is a choice. Why choose it?
8 responses to “Animal injustice is a choice. Why choose it?”
-
“We excuse what we would never endure, and we hide what we would never watch.” I choose peace (and beer). Thank you, Glenn!
-
Your question does not make any sense. Animals rarely choose their injustice.
-
The question is being asked of humans. That is not obvious?
-
And my answer implied that animal aka nature is cruel. Humans are animals. In the nature of animals “injustice” commonly does not exist, it is solely a human perspective. As you haven’t defined that “injustice” but linked a certain video, it will be assumed that certain kinds of mass production are that injustice. But within that mass production there is hardly anything that isn’t topped by animals’ cruelty in nature. So the simple counter question is: Why not choose nature’s perspective, the one that brought us here and made us possible: slaughtering of animals for meat consumption?
The cows in the teaser screenshot are not part of that nature which makes the argument even stronger. They are only raised to be killed and consumed. If not, they won’t live. Therefore the argument would be: it’s better not to live than to suffer. Which is a total misunderstanding of the core Buddhist teaching.
-
To Bebop.
The cruelty of non-human animal aka nature is an impossibility. The cruelty of human animal aka nature is a reality. The difference: the former kill out of necessity, the later out of non-necessity. Killing out of non-necessity is cruel.
It is absurd to speak of “injustice” in relation to non-human animals. Why? Because justice/injustice is solely a human perspective.
So the simple counter question is: Why choose cruelty and injustice?
Read this essay and, if the spirit of emptiness so moves you, tell me what you think: https://heyzine.com/flip-book/2112c4e3c4.html
-
You are just imposing some of your own logic on this topic. Cruelty of nature is impossible? That can only be true in the eyes of nature. In the eyes of humans a well fed cat that comes home with a mouse between her teeth is still to be considered unnecessary cruel, and many animals kill without your “necessity”. This is not a valid criteria because it would indeed justify our killing without necessity. Not to mention that a vegetarian lifestyle still requires pest control, so rats and locusts will be ranked below chicken randomly by humans.
-
So, to your questions. I have falsified that animals do only kill if there is necessity, therefore we can consider them as cruel. Cruelty is a human perspective as well as injustice. Therefore do not chose it, instead try to go with the flow of nature where unnecessary killing of other animals happens, and slaughter, butcher etc, as you do with the mosquitoes that could give you dengue and the millions of bacteria that caused your diarrhea.
Theorem 2 in the essay is misleading.on an emotional level. The fact that animals are ranked in Theorem 1 due to their neurological capabilities is inferior moral (racism) and leads to the assumption that they should be spared “pain”. This can easily be done by meds and e.g. quick killing of livestock. It is very common (I lived on a farm as a child) and less painful than common death in nature. Those Theorems will get you nowhere.
Theorem 3 even dares to link those with Buddhist teaching, here compassion. The dharma does not make any sense if there is no suffering to overcome and it does not have a solution for physical pain. Animals are incapable of the Buddhist path. They are explicitly permitted even for monks to be consumed. You are just leaving important parts of the Palicanon out. As soon as you argue with the texts, you will be contradicted by other texts of the tradition. This will get you nowhere neither
-
Ok!
But you do make one lethal error. You say: “Those Theorems will get you nowhere.” Oh, the places they will get you, Mr. Bebop, the places you could go . . .!!!
Non-Buddhism 
What do you think?