[Buddha-l] "Nature" and eating meat

[Joy Vriens]

Stefan Detrez wrote:
> It's interesting and reflectively profitable to do some moral reflection on the case of the plane crash in the Andes. There, people were so desperate for food they started cutting lumps of meat off of the killed passengers. Something which at first seemed revolting, and maybe to some, even immoral, soon evolved into a situation which demanded such supererogatory solutions that eating dead humans' flesh was the only means to stay alive.  

This is about eating meat as a means of survival, regardless of moral 
concerns. It is also about eating meat by others, who don't necessarily 
share the same moral quest as those who regard eating human flesh 
immoral. Morality on a spiritual level can only be an individual 
aspiration.

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?
Compare with the donation of organs. Body organs donated to people 
suffering from defective organs can also save lives. But doing so 
without the approval of the deceased or of his family, I am sure that 
charges will be pressed and those transplanting or receiving the organs 
will be condamned. Why?

> Now, if we reason that keeping other (human) beings alive is virtuous, and the meat is provided by beings who were not killed for culinary purposes (what about the bodhisattva who had himself eaten by the lioness to feed her cup?), then one could claim that eating meat in this situation is not immoral, and can even be considered morally justified. The dead were put to use by helping people stay alive until other means of survival became available.  

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.

> Regarding the debate on 'onvercoming' human nature, it seems to point at a pretty universal aspiration in most religions and ideologies: leading a virtuous/politically/socially correct life is cutting off that behaviour which is illustrative of 'the animal' (sex, killing, egoism, possessiveness, impulsivity) in man.  

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.

> 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.

> 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.