[Buddha-l] Victimized vegans?

[Richard Hayes]

On Thursday 10 May 2007 18:02, jkirk wrote:

> Mahatma Gandhi wrestled with these issues. He decided to not eat eggs
> because it was robbing the hen, in his view, nor would he accept milk
> because it was robbing the calf.

That is exactly the reasoning that one finds in the two Buddhist sutras I 
mentioned earlier. All dairy products, eggs and honey, as well as wool, are 
off limits to a bodhisattva, because acquiring them is a form of theft. Meat 
and leather products can be obtained only through taking life. Anyone who has 
vowed to relieve the suffering of all sentient beings has to think seriously 
about causing animals suffering by stealing from them or taking their lives.
So what's a bodhisattva to eat or wear?

> He took all these
> quiddities seriously, to the point that he resembled a nut-case to many of
> his contemporaries.

Surely to anyone who has taken on any task as quixotic as relieving the 
suffering of all sentient beings is not going to be detained by 
considerations of what less altruistic people think of her.

> Vegans enforce their warped views on children, unlike the Mahatma.

This may be an over-generalization. In fact, it is for sure. When I was a 
vegan, I certainly did not require anyone else in my life to follow suit. 
Other vegans I have known have also seen it as a special calling, sort of 
like celibacy, not as a requirement for the entire human race. The problem 
for me was that being a vegan requires so much vigilance that it becomes all 
but impossible to eat socially, and I felt I had better avoid acquiring yet 
one more anti-social tendency. 

Perhaps I should have moved to Africa. An African friend of mine said that in 
his country (Liberia) all people belong to social units than have strict meat 
taboos. They can eat animal flesh, but everyone has animals whose flesh is 
taboo. People are required to marry outside their social units. The result is 
that most people end up observing both the man's and the woman's dietary 
taboos, thereby eliminating all meat from the household diet. And Africans 
(like many other peoples in the world) stop drinking milk when they are 
weaned from their mothers and quickly become lactose intolerant, so they eat 
no dairy products. Although not philosophically committed to veganism, many 
Africans are de facto vegans.

> My sense 
> of the ones that I have met is that they are fanatics and not educated in
> the history of dietary ideologies and restrictions, or lack of them.

Again, you  over-generalize. You've met me, and I'm sure you'll agree that I 
do not have a fanatical bone in my body. I'll bet you know a lot more vegans 
than you are aware of. Most of the ones I know are pretty unobtrusive about 
it.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am no longer a vegetarian, let alone a 
vegan. But I consider it a moral weakness (akrasia) on my part and keep 
resolving to get back to my former dietary habits. Philosophically, I fully 
agree with veganism. Try as I might, I cannot find any flaws in the arguments 
in favor of veganism as a moral position, so I can't manage to find it as 
ridiculous as you do, Joanna. I just find it very difficult to live up to 
this particular moral conviction in a society whose economy is based largely 
on death and destruction. Although I am philosophically opposed to driving 
cars and eating animal products, I do both (and feel diminished thereby).

-- 
Richard Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico