[Buddha-l] "Nature" and eating meat

[Stefan Detrez]

2005/10/24, Joy Vriens <joy.vriens at nerim.net>:
>
>
> Another interesting point in the Andes cannibalism case is the legal
> aspect of it. Did any laws apply that forbid the eating of human flesh,
> were there any charges pressed to the eaters by the families of the
> deceased or by a general attorney? And if not why?


When people get into survival mode, moral concerns are far away. Brecht's
'Erst dass Fressen, dann die Moral' illustrates this very nicely. Even IF
they were concerned with legal matters, they would still take that chance to
keep alive. Maybe that's a good reason why self defence with lethal results
for the assaulter are not punished according to standards for judging
'killers'.
If you're on a life boat and it's overloaded and you push someone off,
nobody will press charges for having succesfully saved your life and that of
others. That would be quite contradictory. You might choose to sacrifice
yourself. Would that be illegal suicide?

>
> The case of the Bodhisattva is a mythical story that tells me more about
> non duality (exchange/equivalence of self and other) than about any
> moral issue as far as I am concerned.


Some myths set examples. Think of what the Jains do when they offer dead
bodies to vultures. I don't know about the case of Buddhists. But it can be
understood as a form of noblesse (obligé) to sacrifice your life to help
others (fill thier tummies).

>
> Yes humanism, the Human project is a project. We can't judge the whole
> project on the basis of somme rotten pears (as the Curt doctrine would
> require us to do). ;-) Some religions or religious currents want to go
> even further than that and would like to cut off that behaviour which is
> illustrative of 'man' and have even "higher" aspirations.


And your point being?

> My personal opinion is that most of which is considered as a vice is
> actually that which erupts from basic needs for survival and which are
> Amoral, in contrast to IMmoral. The projection of 'immorality' is probably
> inspired by the socially, culturally, etc disruptive effects of these vices.
>
> For survival? I don't understand. A vice is that which erupts from basic
> *individual* needs and that is considered as a vice by the society in
> which that individual lives. E.g. excising and circumcising children out
> of an "individual need" would be a vice/crime, but when it's done for
> the sake of religion or society, then it's considered a virtue by that
> society.


>From an evolutionary point of view controlling women's sexuality in such a
violent way might serve the propagation of male genes. So in this sense,
it's basically a cultural expression of the male's biological procreative
urge. That it's done might be something cultural relativists have
understanding for (not me who tend to universalize my humanist
values), howit's done is an issue concerning ethics.

> Applied to the eating meat, one can say eating meat is only immoral
> insofar the animal is killed for entertainment purposes. The rest is, I'd
> say, Amoral.
>
> But that's one the points made. If it isn't really necessary to eat meat
> for survival for all, then the "entertainment" (pleasure, culture etc.)
> factor of eating meat is going up.


Maybe it's not necessary (yet sometimes beneficial in moderate quantities) ,
but I wouldn't want to be the one to go and convert meat eating Tibetans or
blood drinking Masai to eat strictly vegetarian. Doe jij dat maar :)

Stefan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20051025/b1650b99/attachment.html