[Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat

[Richard P. Hayes]

On Sat, 2005-10-22 at 22:50 +0100, Mike Austin wrote:

> First,  I put the case that there was no wrong doing in merely eating or 
> buying meat. That was from a very narrow and personal perspective.  Then 
> I suggested that, due to interdependence,  we play a part in every wrong 
> in samsara. That was from a very wide and general perspective. So what I 
> am trying to suggest here is that, somewhere between these perspectives, 
> one draws an arbitrary line for oneself beyond which one may consider an 
> action of someone else to be beyond one's own responsibility.

Fair enough. It is notoriously difficult to find where to draw lines. If
I may again refer to the writing of James Hollis, he distinguishes three
kinds of guilt. The first he calls existential guilt, which is the
sadness any reasonable and sensitive person feels about the fact that
maintenance of one's life requires the death of others. The second he
calls reasonable guilt, which is the natural feeling of being diminished
a moral person feels when she fails to live up to her moral standards.
The third is neurotic guilt, where a person feels guilty for things that
are really not at all in his control.

> It would appear that, more or less unanimously on this list, people view 
> that any killing that follows after someone buys meat,  is caused by the 
> buyer of that meat and is their responsibility.

I am not sure is a unanimous view. It is a view stated by several people
that a buyer of make must take some of the responsibility of the killing
of the animals slaughtered for that purpose.

>  I would presume then (so we can move away from meat eating) that this
> applies to any purchase for which there had to be a prior killing -
> for example, leather goods.

Yes. Many vegetarians do avoid buying leather goods.

>  When I was in a taxi a couple of days ago, I sat on leather seats. I
> am aware 
> that an animal had to die (or, most probably, be killed) so that I could 
> sit on a leather seat.  So, through the supply chain of taxi-driver, car 
> manufacturer, tanner and slaughterer, I am now causing the death of some 
> cow in the future because I took a ride in a taxi with leather seats.

No, that would be neurotic guilt. If you bought a car with leather
seats, however, that might be a better example of something for which
you have have to take some responsibility (if your goal was to be
compliant with Buddhist principles about karma). You might also take
some responsibility for taking a taxi that pollutes the atmosphere
instead of walking or riding a bicycle.

>  It may be an increasio ad absurdum, but that is where the argument leads.

Not necessarily.

> Another,  more relevant, example (for Tibetan Buddhists) is the offering 
> of silk scarves. I was informed a few months ago, that thousands of silk 
> moths have to die to produce one silk scarf.  Now, my collection of silk 
> offering scarves (that I bought)  represent my causing the death of many 
> silk moths in the future.

Yes. For that reason many vegetarian Buddhists avoided buying or wearing
silk. 

> Then, should someone see me offering scarves, they may think,  "This
> person uses silk scarves. I will now produce silk scarves and kill
> moths to supply this person."

You are now beginning to get the point.

> So, I find it rather difficult to see where to draw the line here. 

Welcome to being human. We all find it difficult to know where to draw
the line. And therefore most of us suffer.

> But I would like to point out that my views are by no means 
> fixed on this. This whole discussion has provided me with plenty of food 
> for thought and I am reviewing my position carefully.  I am glad that we 
> are now getting into the nitty gritty of the matter.

I think this has been a useful discussion for many people, and I very
much appreciate the time and sincerity you have taken to contribute to
it. Thanks to all of you who have either said something or thought about
what others were saying.

-- 
Richard