365bet娱乐

The core of religious living and the idea of our community, then, for a Buddhist, is not to be taken in the narrow sense of human society alone, but in the broader sense of a shared community comprised of all living or sentient beings. There is another, less favorable side to the Buddhist view of animals, however. The way in which early Buddhists talked about animals reveals that they thought about them in rather negative ways. For Buddhists, any animal other than a human was in an inferior position and could, if it lived a perfect life, be reborn as a human. Similarly, if a human lived immorally, he or she would be punished by being reincarnated as a nonhuman.^[1]

1. The meaning of Animal Rights

An animal is defined as 鈥渁 living being other than a human.鈥� This is a controversial definition, because animal is often defined as 鈥渁 living thing capable of spontaneous movement鈥�.^[2] In regard to animal rights, we have to explore two points. The first is the right of humans to exploit animals for their own pleasure, comfort, profit, and survival, and the second is the right of animals to live a natural life and die a natural death, without human interference or exploitation. These are the extremes, of course: Most animal rights groups recognize the dependence of humans on animals and of animals on humans, for the survival of both.

Animal rights activists believe that animals are of equal or similar importance to humans, and thus, animals must receive equal or similar treatment to that of humans.^[3] Animal Rights is the philosophy of allowing non-human animals to have the most basic rights that all sentient beings desire: the freedom to live a natural life free from human exploitation, unnecessary pain and suffering, and premature death. This is what the animal rights movement is about; it is not about working for equality between human and non-human animals.

Animals, humans and nonhumans, are sentient, and their lives have significant value. To obstruct an animal, to cause it pain, distress, suffering, misery, or terror; to mutilate an animal; or to kill an animal is harmed the animal.^[4] Animal rights are based on the idea that animals share similar emotional and physical feelings to humans, and therefore should have similar rights to health and wellbeing. They address the interests, welfare and ethical treatment of animals, including animal cruelty.

Animal right, also known as animal liberation is the idea that the most basic interests of non-human animals should be afforded the same consideration as the similar interests of human beings. We have a duty not to harm animals, and animals have a right not to be harmed by us. It developed in the late 1970s.^[5] Animal Rights is a movement that intends to protect all animals from being exploited and abused by humans. This includes the use of animals for anything that causes them pain and suffering, such as medical experimentation, imprisonment in circuses and zoos, and fur production. Animal rights activists want animals to be considered as individuals, rather than property.^[6] The Animal Rights movement had a strong comeback in the 1970, where most of the modern terms were coined. Oxford psychologist Richard Ryder coined the word 鈥渟peciesism,鈥� which came to be the basis of the animal rights movement. Basically, speciesism is the assignment of different values to beings depending on their species. Ryder wrote extensively on the issue and considered it as serious as racism.^[7]

In 1975, Peter Singer wrote what is now considered the basic reference book for animal rights activist. The book Animal Liberation has been used as course book for Singer鈥檚 Bioethics course at Princeton University. Other books considered as essential to the animal rights movement include James Rachels鈥� Created from Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism and Tom Regan鈥檚 The Case for Animal Rights.

The animal rights movement is not interested in making animals and humans equal. Rather, they work for the basic rights of all animals to live free of human abuse, and avoid unnecessary pain or premature death at the hands of humans. Animal right organizations go further in saying it is also morally wrong to use animal product for food or clothing, they oppose the use of animal in experiment and entertainment completely. Organization such as people for the ethical treatment of animals, in the USA, hope to end the use of animals in these way. They work towards this by campaigning and protesting, or even by rescuing animal from research laboratories.^[8]

2. Buddhist perspective on Animal Rights

Buddhism entails a philosophy that is sensitive to the pains and needs of animals, and this philosophy is not merely peripheral, but belongs 鈥渢o the core of the tradition鈥� forming 鈥渢he foundation of Buddhist morality鈥�^[9]

Animals in the Jataka speak out against harming other species, against animal sacrifice, and against hunting and eating animals.^[10] The Buddhist is to remember that 鈥淎濒濒 have the same sorrows, the same joys鈥� and must be protected.^[11] He who for the sake of happiness does not hurt others, who also want happiness, shall hereafter find happiness.^[12] Consideration for animals must have mention here, for the books in very many places teach it, not merely in connection with the rule against taking life, but as a form of kindness. The 闯腻迟补办补蝉, in those 鈥�birth stories鈥� a genuine sympathy for animal life, with that racy rustic humor which accompanies it, is often made the means of giving point to the moral, that the dumb animals claim of us, not merely the cold technical avoidance of killing, but friendliness that will neither hurt them nor cause them fear.^[13]

In the same that meaning, The Buddha commented:

鈥淎濒濒 living beings are afraid of the stick,
All living beings fear death.
Comparing oneself to others,
Don鈥檛 hurt or cause another.鈥�^[14]

Those who resorted to these activities were usually relegated to the margins of the society. This policy is far removed from the ideals that the Buddha proclaimed when he advised rulers that birds and beasts should be given ward and protection.

The concern for animal welfare was not confined to the Buddhist monastic community. 础艣辞办补, one of the best known Indian emperors, converted to Buddhism and establishes several laws that required kind treatment to animals. These include restricting meat consumption, curtailing, and establishing hospitals and roadside watering stations for animals. Excerpts from 础艣辞办补鈥檚 inscriptions are as follows, translated from rocks and pillars still standing throughout India: 鈥淔ormerly, in the kitchen of the Beloved of the gods, king 笔谤颈测补诲补谤艣颈苍 (Emperor 础艣辞办补), many hundred thousands of animals were killed every day for the sake of curry. But now when this Dharma-rescript is written, only three animals are being killed (every day) for the sake of curry (viz.) two peacocks (and) one deer (and) the deer again, not always. Even these three animals shall not be killed in the future.鈥�^[15]

In his fifth Pillar Edict, 础艣辞办补 decrees the protection of a large number of animals that were not in common use as livestock; protects from slaughter young animals and mother animals still milking their young; protects forests from being burned, expressly to protect the animals living in them; and bans a number of other practices hurtful to animals. In this 础艣辞办补 was carrying out the advice to the Cakravartin king given in the 颁补办办补惫补迟迟颈蝉墨丑补苍腻诲补-sutta^[16] that a good king should extend his protection not merely to different classes of people equally, but also to beasts and birds. Animal life is observed with accuracy and sympathy and we see not only the large forms like elephants and horses but a train of ants going up a Pal膩峁�a tree in flower.^[17]

In Sri Lanka, around 300 BCE, an adept Buddhist practitioner (Arahant Mahinda) petitioned King Dev膩na峁僷iyatissa on behalf of animals, to remind the emperor of his Buddhist obligation to protect, represent, and defend all creatures in his realm:^[18] 鈥淥h! Great King, the birds of the air and the beasts have an equal right to live and move about in any part of this land as thou. The land belongs to the peoples and all other beings and thou art only the guardian of it.鈥�^[19]

础艣辞办补n model of benevolent state Arahant Mahinda鈥檚 declaration set the tone for the creation of an 础艣辞办补n model of benevolent state in Sri Lanka. The social and legal history of Sri Lanka provides innumerable examples of the Buddhist attitude to animal life. Our former Kings established some of the worlds鈥� first wild life sanctuaries. Five of the kings governed the country under the 鈥�Maghata鈥� rule, which banned completely the killing of any animal in the kingdom.^[20]

King Silakala (524-537 CE) decreed the preservation of life for all creatures throughout the Island. King Kassappa IV (898-914 CE) granted safety to all creatures on land and water and in doing so observed in all respects the conduct of the ancient kings. Virtuous Kings moved by compassion for animals distributed young corn full of milky juice to cattle, and rice to the crows and other birds. King Mahinda IV made arrangements for the distribution of rice cakes to apes, wild boar, gazelle and dogs. King Parakramabahu I had commanded that safety of life protective measures be extended to all creatures without exception living on dry land and in the water on the four uposatha days in every month.^[21]

Several Kings established Animal Hospitals and one King i.e. 叠耻诲诲丑补诲腻蝉补 (314 CE) became a reputed medical and veterinary surgeon. The people, influenced by the principle of Ahimsa generally kept away from occupations that required the killing of animals to earn a living e.g. hunting, fishing and the slaughter of animals for food. Those who resorted to these activities were usually relegated to the margins of the society.

Buddhists should be more proactive in animal welfare work and campaign for law reform in this area because Buddhism more than any other religion (except Jainism) recognizes the right to life of all living beings rather than only humans. In addition Buddhism extols compassion to all forms of life. 鈥楰ill and eat鈥� is not a Buddhist tenet.

At a minimum, the Dhammapada is consistent with animal rights. Indeed, it seems to mandate many of the goals of the animal rights movement, for example the abolition of the meat industry and vivisection. Given that the Dhammapada is one of the core scriptures of Buddhism, it is difficult to see how Buddhists who do participate in activities which kill animals can justify the discrepancy between their practice and the words of the Buddha.

Blaise Pascal, a French philosopher and mathematician, in the seventeenth century, he made an unequivocal of no meat in his meal.^[22] The humane man will grant the animals of this world what he grants his fellow men: the right to live and be happy. The philosophers know that animals contain all the characteristics that make a human: individuality, emotions, desires, ability to suffer. And the scientists know that humans are just another animal, just another creature of complex psychology.

Ritson argued against meat-eating on the grounds that it is unnatural, unnecessary, unhealthy and immoral. He repeated the notion that meat 鈥榠s the cause of cruelty and ferocity鈥� among those who devour it, and drew attention to the widespread existence of vegetarian cultures.^[23] Finally, if we believe in the right to life, we have no excuse for killing animals.

Although raising animals for food is not the best way to increase the amount of animal pleasure, it may be argued that it is the best way to increase the amount of animal and human pleasure.^[24] In developing the classical utilitarian position on the use of animals for food, it鈥檚 claimed that it is implausible to think that the suffering an animal experiences from confinement, transportation, and slaughter-related activities are outweighed by the pleasures of eating these animals. One can live and live well without going hunting, eating meat, wearing furs or even leather clothing, and doing all the other things that directly or indirectly contribute to animal suffering or the violation of putative animals right.^[25]

According to Mahatma Gandhi, Indian leader, 鈥淭he greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treats.鈥�^[26] People鈥檚 beliefs about animal rights come from their family background, education, religion, society and the experiences in their life. Each of us is unique and we have our own unique set of beliefs. Our beliefs form the codes and laws of our society. These in turn affect the way in which the animals in our society are treated.^[27]

As regards the consumption of meat, Percival says, 鈥淭hey never eat meat, or anything that has had life鈥� and Tennent says, 鈥淭he mass of the population were nevertheless vegetarians and so little value did they place on animal food鈥�.^[28] 鈥淥n these grounds, a great deal of the killing of nonhuman animals must be condemned.鈥�^[29]

Animal right campaigners have written their own declaration of rights for animals:

鈥�-have the right to live free from human exploitation, whether in the name of science or sport, exhibition or service, food or fashion.

-have the right to live in harmony with their nature rather than according to human desires.

-have the fight to live on a healthy planet.鈥�^[30]

There are many ways in which government can protect wild animals. They can set up areas nature reserves, national park and wilderness areas, where wild species and their habitat are protect. Environment and wildlife concerns can be taken into consideration when planning for housing and city development. 鈥淢any animals are hunted have simply for please, in what are called blood sport. Hunting has become a sport rather than a necessity.鈥�^[31]

This policy is far removed from the ideals that the Buddha proclaimed when he advised rulers that birds and beasts should be given 鈥渨ard and protection鈥�.^[32] Cultural beliefs, history and prejudice have had an enormous impact on how humans view animal sentience. Most people have over history assumed that many animals feel pain, hunger, thirst, heat, cold, fear, anger and other basic emotions, because we have everyday evidence that they do.

According to Charles Darwin: 鈥楢nimals, whom we have our slaves, we do not like to consider our equal.鈥�^[33] Most people think that the lives of human beings are of special value. They believe that any human life is so much more valuable than the life of any nonhuman animal that faced with a choice between saving the lowliest member of our own species or any member of any other species; they would always choose to save the human.^[34] At present the killing of a chimpanzee is not regarded as a serious matter. Large numbers of chimpanzees are used in scientific research, and many of them die in the course of this research.^[35] If human life does have special value or a special claim to be protected, it has it in so far as most human beings are persons. But if some non-human animals are persons, too, the lives of those animals must have the same special value or claim to protection.

Actor Richard Gere says,

鈥淎s custodians of this planet it is our responsibility to deal with all species with kindness, love and compassion. That these animals suffer through human cruelty is beyond understanding. Please help to stop this madness.鈥�^[36]

Animals should not be used by humans, and should not be regarded as their property.^[37] In order to save the most animals, increasing numbers of animal rights activists are becoming vegetarian. The bonus in this dietary change is that vegetarians have lower rates of heart disease, osteoporosis, and certain forms of cancer than flesh eaters. In addition, vegetarians are also helping the environment and the world hunger problem, since less water, land, and energy are needed to feed a person on a vegetarian diet than on an animal-based diet.

The Dalai Lama says that:

鈥淲e need others for our very existence. The practice of compassion and non-violence is one鈥檚 own self-interest.鈥�^[38]

To practice nonviolence, first of all we have to practice it within ourselves. In each of us, there is a certain amount of violence and a certain amount of nonviolence. Depending on our state of being, our response to things will be more or less nonviolent. Even if we take pride in being vegetarian, for example, we have to acknowledge that the water in which we boil our vegetables contains many tiny microorganisms. We cannot be completely nonviolent, but by being vegetarian, we are going in the direction of nonviolence.^[39]

Whereas some of the great religions of the East have emphasized the desirability of protecting nonhuman life while tending to ignore nonhuman suffering, the animal welfare moment of the West has emphasized the reduction of suffering while condoning killing for food and other purposes. Now the modern animal rights ideology brings both threads together in its quest to conquer suffering and to protect nonhuman like universally.^[40]

As working on animal rights issues follows clearly from fundamental Buddhist teachings, they are by no means exclusively Buddhist. Our hope is that many people, regardless of their religious views, will wholeheartedly embrace them in their future work for animal rights.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

Paul Waldau, 鈥楻eligion and Animals: Buddhism鈥�. In Encylcopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare, Volume 1, ed. MarcBekoff, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2010: 455.

[2]:

Robert A. Palmatier, Speaking of Animals: A Dictionary of Animal Metaphors, USA: Greenwood Press, 1995: xi.

[3]:

John M. Kistler, People promoting and people opposing animal rights: in their own words: ABC CLIO, 2009: 2.

[4]:

Clifford J. Sherry, Animal rights: a reference handbook. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002: 244.

[5]:

Eugene C. Hargrove, The Animal Rights, Environmental Ethics Debate: The Environmental Perspective, Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992: xiv.

[6]:

Harold D. Guither, Animal Rights: History and Scope of a Radical Social Movement, USA: The Board of Trustees, Southern Illinois University, 1998: 123.

[7]:

Roderick Nash, The Rights of Nature: A History of Environmental Ethics, England: The University of Wisonsin Press, 1989: 142.

[8]:

Barbara James, Animal Rights. London: Hodder Murray, 2002: 9.

[9]:

Paul Waldau, The Specter of Speciesism: Buddhist and Christian Views of Animals, USA: Oxford University Press, 2002: 138.

[10]:

Christopher Key Chapple, 鈥楢nimals and Environment in the Buddhist Birth Stories鈥�. In Buddhism and Ecology: The Interconnection of Dharma and Deeds, eds. Mary Evelyn Tucker and Duncan Ryuken Williams, Cambridge,Harvard University, 1997: 135-38.

[11]:

Burtt, E. A., ed, The Teachings of the Compassionate Buddha: Early Discourses, the Dhammapada, and Later Basic Writings, New York: New American Library, 1955: 139.

[12]:

Dhammapada 54.

[13]:

Reginald S. Copleston, Theravada Buddhism, Delhi: Eastern Book Linkers, 1993: 113.

[14]:

Dhammapada 129.

[15]:

Christopher Chapple, Op. Cit. 24-25.

[16]:

顿墨驳丑补 狈颈办腻测补 no.26.

[17]:

Krishna Chaitanya, Arts of India, New Delhi: Shakti Malik, Abhinav Publications, 1987: 49.

[18]:

Lisa Kemmerer, Animals and World Religions: Rightful Relations, New York: Oxford University Press, Inc, 2011:119.

[19]:

A.R.B. Amerasinghe, The Legal Heritage of Sri Lanka, Colombo: Sarvodaya, 1999: 130-133.

[20]:

Walpola Rahula, History of Buddhism in Ceylon: the Anuradhapura Period, 3^rd Century BC鈥�10^th Century AD, M. D. Gunasena, 1996: 73.

[21]:

A.R.B. Amerasinghe, Op.Cit. 130-133.

[22]:

Blaise Pascal, Thoughts on Religion, and Other Important Subjects: Recently translated from the French of Blaise Pascal, London: Samuel Bagster, 1806: 62.

[23]:

Richard D. Ryder, Animal revolution: changing attitudes towards specialism, UK: Oxford, 2000: 92.

[24]:

Peter Singer and Tom Regan, Animal Rights and Human Obligations, New Jersey: Prentice-hall, Eaglewood Cliffs, 1976: 180.

[25]:

Tom Regan, Op. Cit. 373.

[26]:

Mohandas Gandhi, quoted in Margaret C. Jasper, Animal Rights Law. Dobbs Ferry, New York: Oceana Publications, Inc, 2002: vii.

[27]:

Barbara James, Op. Cit. 11.

[28]:

A.R.B. Amerasinghe, Op. Cit. 132.

[29]:

Peter Singer, Practical Ethics-Second Edition, Kundli (India): Replica Press Pvt. Ltd, 2003:119.

[30]:

Barbara James, Op. Cit. 7.

[31]:

Ibid. 42.

[32]:

David J. Kalupahana, Ethics in Early Buddhism, New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2008: 127. See, Subhash Chandra Malik, Dissent, Protest, and Reform in Indian Civilization, Indian Institute of Advanced Study, 1977: 20.

[33]:

Barbara James, Op. Cit. 5.

[34]:

Tom Regan, Op. Cit. 284.

[35]:

Peter Singer, Op. Cit. 118.

[36]:

Barbara James, Op. Cit. 52.

[37]:

Peter Singer, Animal Liberation, Random House, 1975, See also Tom Regan, The case for Animal Rights, University of Californa Press, 1983, also Gary Francione, Animals, Property, and the Law, Temple University Press, 1995; this paperback edition 2007.

[38]:

Leolla Karunyakara, Op. Cit. 118.

[39]:

Thich Nhat Hanh, Op. Cit. 19.

[40]:

Richard D. Ryder, Op. Cit. 3.