Animal Ethics camps
_________________________
Beyond the west: animal ethics in Ancient India
- Ancient Indian ethics associated with 3 religions: Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism
- Who is the author, Peter Adamson?
- Another article on animal ethics in Ancient India
- A podcast on animal ethics in Ancient India
Adamson's opening issue
- cultural relativism: whatever another culture sees as right really is right, but just for them
- often countered by citing some moral abomination in another culture -- "The Aztecs sacrificed human children!!!!"
- implication: out standards are right
- better option: "point to moral beliefs of other cultures that are better" (p. 49)
Indian animal ethics
- better because more concern for animals
- better because more vegetarians in India
- better because a better basis for vegetarianism
Singer & Regan's basis for vegetarianism
- Singer: animals have interests, which we have to take into consideration
- Regan: animals have rights, which we have to respect
- Both: animal-centered ethics
Indian animal ethics
- ethic of ahimsa (non-violence)
- it's better for me to be non-violent -- through non-violence I flourish, make spiritual progress, become a better person
- note: violence towards animals is considered violence, so in that sense animals are elevated
Connection to eudaimonistic ethics (Aristotle)
- eudaimonia--flourishing, happiness in an elevated sense
- the ethical person has eudaimonia because they have a set of virtues
"Within this eudaimonist framework, what is wrong about harming animals is not that one infringes the animals' rights or interests. Rather it is that the harmful action would be an expression of a disruptive, violent mindset, one bent upon destruction rather than harmony with the world. Vegetarianism, and more generally non-violent action, was really just a by-product of a peaceful, contented effortlessly controlled inner state, one that required years of practice to attain." (p. 51)
- note: Aristotle does NOT think of non-violence as a virtue!
_________________________
What exactly does non-violence involve? When am I being violent toward animals?
- monks vs. laypersons
- Buddhists vs. Jains vs. Hindus
- Different sects within each religion
Which practices are prohibited under an ethic of ahimsa?
- Personally killing an animal for food
- Having an animal killed for food -- the animal is killed for you
- Accidentally killing an animal
- Jain monks: will avoid killing insects by sweeping ground, avoiding fire, wearing face masks
- Us: drive carefully on a road where there are deer or squirrels
- Eating meat that wasn't killed by you or for you (more debateable)
- mendicant monks eating donated meat
- eating meat on an airplane -- you ordered the vegetarian meal
- eating roadkill
Does ahimsa always rule out participating in killing?
- Adamson discusses examples from the Bhagavad Gita
- participating in a just war
- performing a ritual animal sacrifice
- Can these things be done with a "non-violent state of mind"?
_________________________
Is it really better to take a human-centered approach to animal ethics?
One advantage of ahimsa approach
- animal-centered approach: must worried about whether giving up meat actually saves animals
- human-centered approach: ahimsa makes you better off, regardless of the impact on animals