Animal lives matter
Re: "Vegan vow", (PostBag, Jan 5).
In a relatively measured letter, Eric Bahrt presents solid points explaining his conversion to veganism. Whilst his personal decision is to be respected, his points are, nonetheless, not convicting.
Pointing out the unjustly partial treatment, the double standard, that the law too often metes out to dogs compared to pigs merely on the grounds of group membership, pure prejudice, in other words, is his strongest argument.
Many humans like to make dogs pets, but as Mr Bahrt notes, that is not a sufficient reason for the law to treat those species differently when it comes to enjoying their tasty flesh.
Albeit less often, pigs are also kept as pets, as are cattle, chickens, and pretty much every other animal whose tasty flesh our own species has evolved to enjoy eating.
Pigs and dogs should either be on the menu or both off it according to the law. This is also true for cows, sheep and most of the other animals we humans like to eat.
Mr Bahrt's following points are arguments not for veganism or even vegetarianism but for decent treatment of the animals we want to eat. Causing needless suffering is immoral.
The ship's captain in Eric's childhood anecdote was unethical in his gratuitous cruelty to the captured shark. Nor do his cruel acts become moral merely because they were socially accepted at the time.
Similarly immoral is factory farming, which produces cheap chicken and pork. Those businesses and their owners, including shareholders, behave immorally when they cruelly inflict suffering on their products at the behest of paying customers, whose every purchase is ethically equivalent to ordering a paid hireling to torture.
No respectable Buddhist would commit such ugly acts, let alone repeat them on a daily basis.
Legalistic twisting of the words of Buddhism's First Precept to excuse such abuse merely adds dishonesty to the rejection of compassion for other sentient beings and makes a mockery of the claim to follow the Buddha's teachings.
That is the sort of legalistic machination that characterises the likes of coup makers, their inherently unethical constitutions, and those intent on profiting from such moral corruption executed in strict accord with ugly law.
But for those of us who are not Buddhists, painlessly killing an animal bred under decent conditions to be eaten is not wrong.
Unlike your typical human past 12 months of age, cows, pigs, dogs, sheep, sharks, chickens, ducks, and so on lack any morally relevant ability that could create a right to life. They are not self-aware. They do not make plans. They do not entertain moral intuitions like you and I and Mr Bahrt.
That lack of any characteristic that could create a right to life is also why abortion should be legal up to birth: no unborn human baby has any ability that could create a right to life any more than do the animals we kill to eat.
Mr Bahrt's decision is respectable, which is more than can be said of those who profess a commitment to Buddhism that is blatantly contradicted by their often grossly excessive indulgence in tasty meat.
However, whilst the case for stronger laws to protect animals from abuse too often, typical of factory farming, is solid, the case against killing to produce meat is not.
Felix Qui
