6 ms·

Not trying to argue it's OK to subject animals to unnecessary pain (it shouldn't be!), but from a pure logical consistency standpoint, are there many non-sentie

by tagrun 5y ago

Not trying to argue it's OK to subject animals to unnecessary pain (it shouldn't be!), but from a pure logical consistency standpoint, are there many non-sentient animals? Why is it OK to not recognize mosquitos, rats, termites, deers, ants, etc etc which meet painful demise by humans as sentient animals while making exceptions for a few?

emptysongglass 5y ago
According to the Buddha, one should not kill any sentient being, sentient being defined as made up of the five skandhas: matter, sensation, perception, mental formations and consciousness. I had a very easy time following this rule until my houseplants were attacked by spider mites and almost simultaneously my rats attacked by a different species of mites. How does one watch the beings (I don't apply "being" to the plants but do to my rats) they love be drained of their vitality by other beings and refuse to intervene? Is it right? My wife, who is not a Buddhist, intervened, and both rats and plants survived but this experience deeply shook me. One might say I am experiencing a crisis of faith.
- rlonn 5y ago
  I admire the jainist (?) philosophy of not killing, but it does seem incredibly impractical, to the point of being stupid even. How do you avoid killing mites on the ground when you go out for a walk?
  - emptysongglass 5y ago
    I agree that the Jainist philosophy is impractical: the essential difference between the Jainist philosophy of non-harm and the Buddhist is one of intention.
  - freetinker 5y ago
    Jain philosophy.
  - crucialfelix 5y ago
    They sweep the ground in front of them with a broom. To be precise, the monks do this, and the laity work as jewelers in Manhattan and support the monks financially.
    - mavhc 5y ago
      And jewelers are just one step removed from miners and massive environmental destruction
    - rlonn 5y ago
      Which obviously does nothing but rearrange the mites on the ground before they’re stepped on, and makes me think they’re hypocrites for adopting a useless measure to make it seem like they actually care. If it is true.
- pmontra 5y ago
  Of course your immune system (and Buddha's one) is constantly killing bacteria to keep you alive. Is there a self defense exception? There should be a line somewhere but it's difficult to draw it when we don't even agree what consciousness is. It could also be totally impractical. Probably a Buddhist alive is better than a Buddhist dead because it's necessary to kill smaller beings to be alive.
  - emptysongglass 5y ago
    I don't think bacteria possess the five skandhas necessary for qualification but I'd love to hear an argument against.
- BarryMilo 5y ago
  As a Buddhist myself... The Buddha did not have pets. That doesn't mean we can't have them, but having them implies that sometimes we can't act according to our values.
- philipov 5y ago
  Isn't the teaching of Buddhism that one should learn to let go of attachments such as love, because they will bring you pain?
  - dan12ha 5y ago
    My interpretation of the teaching is let love exist along with fear etc but don’t cling to love for fear it will pass and don’t cling to fear for fear it will not pass. He wasn’t telling people not to love but to allow it to exist without superimposing your neuroses on top of it.
    - johnisgood 5y ago
      That is exactly what stoicism is about. I definitely recommend https://www.amazon.com/Guide-Good-Life-Ancient-Stoic-ebook/dp/B0040JHNQG https://www.amazon.com/Guide-Good-Life-Ancient-Stoic-ebook/d....
  - emptysongglass 5y ago
    All attachments, yes. But I am neither a Bodhisattva or fully enlightened. In addition, the core crisis I am experiencing is whether it is ok to watch a being suffer greatly in its torment by other beings without intervention. If the only act which may stop the other being from their act of torment is an act that results in their death (medicine to the afflicted), is it blameworthy?
    - roenxi 5y ago
      Any system of beliefs is going to have a few internal inconsistencies. Speaking from cheerful ignorance of what Buddhists actually believe, from my understanding the "don't kill things" is something in the nature of really good advice grafted on top of a philosophy that really an acknowledgement of impermanence and a set of guidelines around how to live with that. There is no sustainable belief system that stops its people from becoming soldiers. If everything dies, at some level killing isn't such a sin. There are real practical populations if people use that as a serious philosophical starting point though.
- koonsolo 5y ago
  “What happens when you tune your instrument too tightly?” the Buddha asked. “The strings break,” the musician replied. “And what happens when you string it too loosely?” “When it’s too loose, no sound comes out,” the musician answered. “The string that produces a tuneful sound is not too tight and not too loose.” “That,” said the Buddha, “is how to practice: not too tight and not too loose.”
  - obedm 5y ago
    Gorgeous. I'm a strong atheist but Buddhism has always been the religion I've respected the most. At least the philosophical aspect of it. I used to struggle with this too. To this day I use a box to pick up spiders or mosquitoes and take then outside instead of killing them. But I wouldn't doubt killing termites to save my plants. We kill everyday. When we walk, or drive the car. We're powerful giants. But we can be respectful giants. It doesn't absolve us from our "sins", but it's far better than nothing. I think it can be narrowed down to "be respectful". Letting your rats die would be disrespectful to them. Killing a spider that isn't harming you is disrespectful to them. Walking on top of ants you know are there is disrespectful to them.
    - mping 5y ago
      This is correct; the "no kill" rule is something you aim for, it doesn't mean you necessarily achieve it. In Mahayana Buddhism there's a story about the Buddha's prior lives, where he decided to kill someone out of compassion: the victim wanted to murder a lot of people, but the future-Buddha killed him to avoid his suffering [1]. Likewise, the Buddhist precepts are training rules, not necessarily commandments that will take you to hell if you break them. [1] http://venyifa.blogspot.com/2008/09/story-of-compassionate-ships-captain.html http://venyifa.blogspot.com/2008/09/story-of-compassionate-s...
- GreenWatermelon 5y ago
  If an enemy waged war, will you let them kill you or your creatures? this how I view this matter. these creatures are under my care, and I'm under an obligation to protect them. this obligation overrides any other feelings or beliefs I have. of course, I'm no Buddhist, and I'm sure you have another point of view about the matter.
- ramblerman 5y ago
  > Evil men will do evil deeds but to get a good man to do evil deeds takes religion. I'm kind of surprised that this is a dillema for you. I.e. that you would rather watch the pets under your care, potentially in a confinement you placed them in get eaten up by mites, than intervene. And that the driving force for that inaction is somehow compassion. It sounds more like confusion.
  - emptysongglass 5y ago
    This is uncharitable. I wouldn't rather. I (myself, as I am now) would rather save them from suffering. There are thousands of years of analysis by Buddhist theologians on these and other subjects. One critique against intervention is by denying or cutting short the acute suffering of another one denies that being's opportunity to learn the truth of their experience: that what is suffering is independent of a lasting self and temporal. I do not subscribe wholesale to beliefs because they are believed. The Buddha himself encouraged such critical analysis for oneself. And other religions do the same, though they are often passed over for what is easier: unthinking adherence. From the Quran, "reflect; you have vision." I am not perfect and I am not blameless. My conflict is a thing I must clarify. Its resolution is wisdom.
    - stjohnswarts 5y ago
      Animals don't learn anything suffering from mites and other parasites.
- hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
  Can you see the mites, though? The monks had a kind of sieve to filter out small animals from drinking water. There is a famous story when some of them developed extrasensory perception and realized the water they had been drinking contains millions of tiny beings invisible to the naked eye. They went to the Buddha and asked what they should do. The Buddha answered, if you cannot see them, that is fine. I like this story because it shows there are some limits to how much we can avoid taking life, otherwise we couldn't live at all.
  - _wolfie_ 5y ago
    What did the monks who could see them do though? Died from thirst?
    - hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
      Sorry I wasn't clear. If you can see them with your physical eyes, you should take reasonable care not to kill them. If you can't see them with your physical eyes but with extrasensory perception, it does not matter in the context of this particular precept (of taking life).
  - emptysongglass 5y ago
    On the rats, no. Thank you for this story. I wasn't able to find it myself. Do you have a link? I did find the story of Thera Cakkhupala, a blind monk who was observed treading on insects [1] but because he was blind and could not see them was blameless. Could this be the story you were thinking of? [1] http://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=001 http://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=001
    - hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
      No, it was definitely another one, and it mentioned Arhats. I heard it from a Tibetan teacher in the context of clarification of the origin of some Vinaya rules all monks should obey, so I assume the story comes from a sutra from the Kanjur, but I was unable to locate it in any of the sutras I've read so far (very few, actually).
- linspace 5y ago
  It is hard enough (impossible?) to discriminate between living and dead matter. Counciousness does not simplify things. When choosing the correct action in our daily life requires solving harder problems than whether P=NP I think the only requirement is that we try.
- woolion 5y ago
  You are trying to find an answer through logical means. This means you need to find a framework with a clearly defined set of axioms and clear reduction rules that bring you to the correct answer. The world does not work like this. All concepts that seem well-defined break when you look at them too close or too far. Does the dog has the Buddha nature? The answer to that is neither 'yes' or 'no', because neither will lead you where you want.
urbdbdkxkd 5y ago
Its very logical. The current definition of sentience being proposed in the bill requires that an animal be able to perceive pain to be within scope (I'm not entirely convinced this should be a necessary condition, but that's what they've settled on) . When existing animal rights legislation was written lobsters, cephalapods etc. were considered incapable of doing this. The evidence now shows that they are capable of perceiving pain so they are being included in the bill (along with rats, deer and other mammals but not insects). Hence logical consistency is preserved. Perhaps the next time they revise animal rights legislation they will have evidence that insects can feel pain and so they will also be included.
- tagrun 5y ago
  Insects feel pain though, can even have chronic pain, so I don't see how it is consistent logically: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/insects-can-experience-chronic-pain-study-finds-180972656/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/insects-can-experi...
bradwood 5y ago
Yeah. Plus chowder?!
Closi 5y ago
> Why is it OK to not recognize mosquitos, rats, termites, deers, ants, etc etc which meet painful demise by humans as sentient animals while making exceptions for a few? It is not generally seen as morally acceptable to crush/kill a dog under the same circumstances that you would crush/swat a mosquito, so there needs to be some differentiation between these two in law. Both have protections, but the dog has more protections because it has been put in the category of sentient creatures. It’s worth noting that both rats and deers on your list are already classed as sentient in the existing legislation passed in May (at least as far as I can tell, as it covered all vertebrates), and it’s clear that from a practical standpoint ants, termites and mosquitos need to be treated differently. Above all else though it’s a legal definition rather than a social or biological distinction.
jillesvangurp 5y ago
Not really. We simply classify animals by how much we can relate to them. Seals, sheep, dogs, etc. are cute. Lobsters, not so much. Most insects even less so. To the point where we are reluctant to eat them even though they are perfectly nutritious. They all have nervous systems, pain reflexes, etc. A counter argument is that absolutely everything in nature at some point dies and it tends to be unpleasant. Dying of old age, surrounded by and cared for by loved ones is kind of really unusual for most things that live. Being mauled to death by some inconsiderate predator is much more common. Whether that's us or some other predator does not really matter all that much. The end result is the same. Lobsters don't generally die of old age; they get nibbled on by predators as soon as they stop being able to defend themselves against that sort of thing (hence the claws). Same with most other things we eat. Most grazing cattle descends from animals that move around in herds that will have the weaker/older animals picked off by predators. Nature can be cruel and we're part of nature. So, my admittedly simplistic reasoning is that if you eat meat and have some respect for what you are eating and how it lived and was killed, it's fine. The animal you are eating would have died no matter what at some point and probably not in a way that is appreciably better and potentially much worse. Additionally with most farm animals you can make the point that it would not even have existed if it wasn't for the fact that we were going to eat the animal. We've literally created species and subspecies of animals that are optimal for breeding and farming that would not stand much chance surviving in the wild. These species would likely go extinct if we'd stop breeding them. A consequence of us being less cruel by not eating certain animals might cause that entire species to stop existing. There's some food for thought. So catching a lobster in the wild and then eating it is fine. But maybe give it a quick stab with a knife through the brain stem before you throw them in the boiling water. Also, keeping them in the fridge shuts down a lot of their brain activity. It's a decent thing to do. A quick death and a tasty meal. Nothing wrong with that.
- sorokod 5y ago
  Nature can be cruel and we're part of nature But we (humans) do exclude ourselves from being part of nature like that. If you believe that this is morally correct, how would you define the general criteria for this exclusion?

by tagrun 5y ago

emptysongglass 5y ago

According to the Buddha, one should not kill any sentient being, sentient being defined as made up of the five skandhas: matter, sensation, perception, mental formations and consciousness. I had a very easy time following this rule until my houseplants were attacked by spider mites and almost simultaneously my rats attacked by a different species of mites. How does one watch the beings (I don't apply "being" to the plants but do to my rats) they love be drained of their vitality by other beings and refuse to intervene? Is it right? My wife, who is not a Buddhist, intervened, and both rats and plants survived but this experience deeply shook me. One might say I am experiencing a crisis of faith.

rlonn 5y ago
I admire the jainist (?) philosophy of not killing, but it does seem incredibly impractical, to the point of being stupid even. How do you avoid killing mites on the ground when you go out for a walk?
- emptysongglass 5y ago
  I agree that the Jainist philosophy is impractical: the essential difference between the Jainist philosophy of non-harm and the Buddhist is one of intention.
- freetinker 5y ago
  Jain philosophy.
- crucialfelix 5y ago
  They sweep the ground in front of them with a broom. To be precise, the monks do this, and the laity work as jewelers in Manhattan and support the monks financially.
  - mavhc 5y ago
    And jewelers are just one step removed from miners and massive environmental destruction
  - rlonn 5y ago
    Which obviously does nothing but rearrange the mites on the ground before they’re stepped on, and makes me think they’re hypocrites for adopting a useless measure to make it seem like they actually care. If it is true.
pmontra 5y ago
Of course your immune system (and Buddha's one) is constantly killing bacteria to keep you alive. Is there a self defense exception? There should be a line somewhere but it's difficult to draw it when we don't even agree what consciousness is. It could also be totally impractical. Probably a Buddhist alive is better than a Buddhist dead because it's necessary to kill smaller beings to be alive.
- emptysongglass 5y ago
  I don't think bacteria possess the five skandhas necessary for qualification but I'd love to hear an argument against.
BarryMilo 5y ago
As a Buddhist myself... The Buddha did not have pets. That doesn't mean we can't have them, but having them implies that sometimes we can't act according to our values.
philipov 5y ago
Isn't the teaching of Buddhism that one should learn to let go of attachments such as love, because they will bring you pain?
- dan12ha 5y ago
  My interpretation of the teaching is let love exist along with fear etc but don’t cling to love for fear it will pass and don’t cling to fear for fear it will not pass. He wasn’t telling people not to love but to allow it to exist without superimposing your neuroses on top of it.
  - johnisgood 5y ago
    That is exactly what stoicism is about. I definitely recommend https://www.amazon.com/Guide-Good-Life-Ancient-Stoic-ebook/dp/B0040JHNQG https://www.amazon.com/Guide-Good-Life-Ancient-Stoic-ebook/d....
- emptysongglass 5y ago
  All attachments, yes. But I am neither a Bodhisattva or fully enlightened. In addition, the core crisis I am experiencing is whether it is ok to watch a being suffer greatly in its torment by other beings without intervention. If the only act which may stop the other being from their act of torment is an act that results in their death (medicine to the afflicted), is it blameworthy?
  - roenxi 5y ago
    Any system of beliefs is going to have a few internal inconsistencies. Speaking from cheerful ignorance of what Buddhists actually believe, from my understanding the "don't kill things" is something in the nature of really good advice grafted on top of a philosophy that really an acknowledgement of impermanence and a set of guidelines around how to live with that. There is no sustainable belief system that stops its people from becoming soldiers. If everything dies, at some level killing isn't such a sin. There are real practical populations if people use that as a serious philosophical starting point though.
koonsolo 5y ago
“What happens when you tune your instrument too tightly?” the Buddha asked. “The strings break,” the musician replied. “And what happens when you string it too loosely?” “When it’s too loose, no sound comes out,” the musician answered. “The string that produces a tuneful sound is not too tight and not too loose.” “That,” said the Buddha, “is how to practice: not too tight and not too loose.”
- obedm 5y ago
  Gorgeous. I'm a strong atheist but Buddhism has always been the religion I've respected the most. At least the philosophical aspect of it. I used to struggle with this too. To this day I use a box to pick up spiders or mosquitoes and take then outside instead of killing them. But I wouldn't doubt killing termites to save my plants. We kill everyday. When we walk, or drive the car. We're powerful giants. But we can be respectful giants. It doesn't absolve us from our "sins", but it's far better than nothing. I think it can be narrowed down to "be respectful". Letting your rats die would be disrespectful to them. Killing a spider that isn't harming you is disrespectful to them. Walking on top of ants you know are there is disrespectful to them.
  - mping 5y ago
    This is correct; the "no kill" rule is something you aim for, it doesn't mean you necessarily achieve it. In Mahayana Buddhism there's a story about the Buddha's prior lives, where he decided to kill someone out of compassion: the victim wanted to murder a lot of people, but the future-Buddha killed him to avoid his suffering [1]. Likewise, the Buddhist precepts are training rules, not necessarily commandments that will take you to hell if you break them. [1] http://venyifa.blogspot.com/2008/09/story-of-compassionate-ships-captain.html http://venyifa.blogspot.com/2008/09/story-of-compassionate-s...
GreenWatermelon 5y ago
If an enemy waged war, will you let them kill you or your creatures? this how I view this matter. these creatures are under my care, and I'm under an obligation to protect them. this obligation overrides any other feelings or beliefs I have. of course, I'm no Buddhist, and I'm sure you have another point of view about the matter.
ramblerman 5y ago
> Evil men will do evil deeds but to get a good man to do evil deeds takes religion. I'm kind of surprised that this is a dillema for you. I.e. that you would rather watch the pets under your care, potentially in a confinement you placed them in get eaten up by mites, than intervene. And that the driving force for that inaction is somehow compassion. It sounds more like confusion.
- emptysongglass 5y ago
  This is uncharitable. I wouldn't rather. I (myself, as I am now) would rather save them from suffering. There are thousands of years of analysis by Buddhist theologians on these and other subjects. One critique against intervention is by denying or cutting short the acute suffering of another one denies that being's opportunity to learn the truth of their experience: that what is suffering is independent of a lasting self and temporal. I do not subscribe wholesale to beliefs because they are believed. The Buddha himself encouraged such critical analysis for oneself. And other religions do the same, though they are often passed over for what is easier: unthinking adherence. From the Quran, "reflect; you have vision." I am not perfect and I am not blameless. My conflict is a thing I must clarify. Its resolution is wisdom.
  - stjohnswarts 5y ago
    Animals don't learn anything suffering from mites and other parasites.
hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
Can you see the mites, though? The monks had a kind of sieve to filter out small animals from drinking water. There is a famous story when some of them developed extrasensory perception and realized the water they had been drinking contains millions of tiny beings invisible to the naked eye. They went to the Buddha and asked what they should do. The Buddha answered, if you cannot see them, that is fine. I like this story because it shows there are some limits to how much we can avoid taking life, otherwise we couldn't live at all.
- _wolfie_ 5y ago
  What did the monks who could see them do though? Died from thirst?
  - hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
    Sorry I wasn't clear. If you can see them with your physical eyes, you should take reasonable care not to kill them. If you can't see them with your physical eyes but with extrasensory perception, it does not matter in the context of this particular precept (of taking life).
- emptysongglass 5y ago
  On the rats, no. Thank you for this story. I wasn't able to find it myself. Do you have a link? I did find the story of Thera Cakkhupala, a blind monk who was observed treading on insects [1] but because he was blind and could not see them was blameless. Could this be the story you were thinking of? [1] http://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=001 http://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=001
  - hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
    No, it was definitely another one, and it mentioned Arhats. I heard it from a Tibetan teacher in the context of clarification of the origin of some Vinaya rules all monks should obey, so I assume the story comes from a sutra from the Kanjur, but I was unable to locate it in any of the sutras I've read so far (very few, actually).
linspace 5y ago
It is hard enough (impossible?) to discriminate between living and dead matter. Counciousness does not simplify things. When choosing the correct action in our daily life requires solving harder problems than whether P=NP I think the only requirement is that we try.
woolion 5y ago
You are trying to find an answer through logical means. This means you need to find a framework with a clearly defined set of axioms and clear reduction rules that bring you to the correct answer. The world does not work like this. All concepts that seem well-defined break when you look at them too close or too far. Does the dog has the Buddha nature? The answer to that is neither 'yes' or 'no', because neither will lead you where you want.

urbdbdkxkd 5y ago

Its very logical. The current definition of sentience being proposed in the bill requires that an animal be able to perceive pain to be within scope (I'm not entirely convinced this should be a necessary condition, but that's what they've settled on) . When existing animal rights legislation was written lobsters, cephalapods etc. were considered incapable of doing this. The evidence now shows that they are capable of perceiving pain so they are being included in the bill (along with rats, deer and other mammals but not insects). Hence logical consistency is preserved. Perhaps the next time they revise animal rights legislation they will have evidence that insects can feel pain and so they will also be included.

tagrun 5y ago
Insects feel pain though, can even have chronic pain, so I don't see how it is consistent logically: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/insects-can-experience-chronic-pain-study-finds-180972656/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/insects-can-experi...

bradwood 5y ago

Yeah. Plus chowder?!

Closi 5y ago

> Why is it OK to not recognize mosquitos, rats, termites, deers, ants, etc etc which meet painful demise by humans as sentient animals while making exceptions for a few? It is not generally seen as morally acceptable to crush/kill a dog under the same circumstances that you would crush/swat a mosquito, so there needs to be some differentiation between these two in law. Both have protections, but the dog has more protections because it has been put in the category of sentient creatures. It’s worth noting that both rats and deers on your list are already classed as sentient in the existing legislation passed in May (at least as far as I can tell, as it covered all vertebrates), and it’s clear that from a practical standpoint ants, termites and mosquitos need to be treated differently. Above all else though it’s a legal definition rather than a social or biological distinction.

jillesvangurp 5y ago

Not really. We simply classify animals by how much we can relate to them. Seals, sheep, dogs, etc. are cute. Lobsters, not so much. Most insects even less so. To the point where we are reluctant to eat them even though they are perfectly nutritious. They all have nervous systems, pain reflexes, etc. A counter argument is that absolutely everything in nature at some point dies and it tends to be unpleasant. Dying of old age, surrounded by and cared for by loved ones is kind of really unusual for most things that live. Being mauled to death by some inconsiderate predator is much more common. Whether that's us or some other predator does not really matter all that much. The end result is the same. Lobsters don't generally die of old age; they get nibbled on by predators as soon as they stop being able to defend themselves against that sort of thing (hence the claws). Same with most other things we eat. Most grazing cattle descends from animals that move around in herds that will have the weaker/older animals picked off by predators. Nature can be cruel and we're part of nature. So, my admittedly simplistic reasoning is that if you eat meat and have some respect for what you are eating and how it lived and was killed, it's fine. The animal you are eating would have died no matter what at some point and probably not in a way that is appreciably better and potentially much worse. Additionally with most farm animals you can make the point that it would not even have existed if it wasn't for the fact that we were going to eat the animal. We've literally created species and subspecies of animals that are optimal for breeding and farming that would not stand much chance surviving in the wild. These species would likely go extinct if we'd stop breeding them. A consequence of us being less cruel by not eating certain animals might cause that entire species to stop existing. There's some food for thought. So catching a lobster in the wild and then eating it is fine. But maybe give it a quick stab with a knife through the brain stem before you throw them in the boiling water. Also, keeping them in the fridge shuts down a lot of their brain activity. It's a decent thing to do. A quick death and a tasty meal. Nothing wrong with that.

sorokod 5y ago
Nature can be cruel and we're part of nature But we (humans) do exclude ourselves from being part of nature like that. If you believe that this is morally correct, how would you define the general criteria for this exclusion?