Chapter IV. Criticism of Classical Views. 4.1 Criticism from Indian perspective

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Chapter IV. Criticism of Classical Views. 4.1 Criticism from Indian perspective"

Frank Mills
5 years ago
Views:

1 61 Chapter IV Criticism of Classical Views Both in India as well as in the West there is an overall sanction towards maintaining a healthy attitude towards animals. However, there are some exceptions which we intend to examine carefully in classical Indian texts as well as in the Western texts where sacrificing or killing animal has been supported. 4.1 Criticism from Indian perspective We know that India had a rich cultural background about nature and living creatures. According to Sankarachariya, there is no difference between two living beings. They are the part of the absolute entity, who is only one, Brahman. So, we the Indians have a broad and positive outlook about the living beings. But there are some verses in Rigveda, Manusmriti, Ramayana which does not support the positive view towards the animals. There are some misconceptions in Vedas. These are - violence against animals, meat eating, etc. Rigveda (10/85/13) declares, on the occasion of a girl s marriage oxen and cows are slaughtered. It is a social custom. Rigveda (16/17/11) states that, Indra used to eat meat of cow, calf, horse and buffalo. It is under social custom. Manusmriti contains instances of violence against animals.

2 62 Now there are few verse which are from interpolated Manusmriti. The 30 th Verse in 5 th Chapter says, Manusmriti states: When a man who is properly engaged in a ritual does not eat meat, after his death he will become a sacrificial animal during twenty one rebirth. The 31 st verse in the 5 th Chapter says The consumption of meat (is befitting) for sacrifices, that is declared to be a rule made by the Gods; but to persist (in using it) on other (occasions) is said to be a proceeding worthy of Rakshasas. The 32 nd Verse in 5 th Chapter of Manusmriti says, It is not sinful to eat meat of eatable animals, for Brahma has created both the eaters and eatables. He, who eats meat, when he honours the Gods and man, commits no sin, whether he has bought it, or himself has killed the animal, or has received it as a present from others. The 40 th Verse in 5 th Chapter says, Herbs, trees, cattle, birds and (other) animals that have been destroyed for sacrifices, receive (being reborn) higher existences. The 56 th Verse in 5 th Chapter says, There is no sin in eating meat, in (drinking) spirituous liquor, and in carnal intercourse, for that is the natural way of created beings, but abstention brings great rewards. The above examples supports the fact that interpolations had been done in Manusmriti and if in a single book two different self

3 63 contradicting statements are given then it s definite that the unacceptable one of them is false. Manusmriti mentions love, protection and non-violence for animals while the interpolation mentions it to be totally wrong. So interpolations are to be rejected. The Great Hindu Epic Ramayana contains violence in Ashwamedha. The Ramayana we get today is a much interpolated text. The Uttar Ramayana, which contains the reference to Ashwamedha, can prove to be a latter addition by even a layman. One of the biggest occasions of cattle and cow slaughter comes in the context of the Yajnas that derived their names from different cattle like the Ashwamedha Yajna, the Gomedha Yajna and the Narmedha Yajna. Some Hindu philosophers have told that Hinduism permits meat eating. We are not sure that these people have really made such comments or not Swami Vivekananda said: You will be surprised to know that according to Hindu rites and rituals, a man can not be a good Hindu who does not eat beef 35. A scholar of scriptures Dr. Pandurang Vaman Kane says, Bajsancyi Samhita sanctifies beefeating because of its purity. 36 Adi Guru Sankaracharya s commentary on Brihdaranyakopanishad 6/4/18 says: Odan (rice) mixed with meat is called Mansodan. On 35 The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Vol.3,1947, Advaita Ashrama, Kolkata P Dharmashastra Vichar Marathi, P.180 (vedicgranth.org/misconceptions-on-vedas/misconception-3)

4 64 being asked whose meat it should be, he answers, Uksha. Uksha is used for an ox, which is capable of producing semen. R.C.Majumder in his book The History and Culture of the Indian People says, this is said in the Mahabharata that King Rantidev used to kill two thousand other animals in addition to two thousand cows daily in order to give their meat in Charity 37. Actually some translators have fallen prey to wrong interpretation of the language. A typical example of foul play by some hell-bent on justifying their obsession with beef in ancient texts, is to translate Mansa as meat. In reality, Mansa is a generic word used to denote pulp. Meat is called Mansa because it is pulpy. So mere presence of Mansa does not mean it refers to meat. Now, it s seen, how a pure mind would read the following lines from Shatpath Brahmin (3/1/2/21) by Maharishi Yajnavalkya: I eat mansa because it is very soft and delicious. In-fact, reading the whole passage containing this verse, one could know that the passage is factually opposing meat eating. Similar injustice can be found, after reading with a pure mind and correct reference, on the following misconceptions : Apastamb Grihastam (1/3/10) says, the cow should be slaughtered on the arrival of a guest, on the occasion of shraddha of ancestors and on the occasion of a marriage. 37 Majumder, R.C., The History and Culture of Indian People, Bharatiya Vidya Bhawan, Bombay Vol. 2, Page.578

5 65 Vashistha Dharmasutra (11/34) writes, If a Brahmin refuses to eat the meat offered to him on the occasion of shraddha or worship, he goes to hell. Swami Dayananda Saraswati wrote in his Light of Truth: A Yajna dedicated to the glory, wellbeing and prosperity of the Rashtra, the nation or empire is known as the Ashwamedha Yajna. To keep the food pure or to keep the senses under control, or to make the food pure or to make a good use of the rays of Sun or keep the earth free from impurities (clean) is called Gomedha Yajna. The word Gau also means the Earth and the Yajna dedicated to keep the Earth, the environment clean is called Gomedha Yajna. The cremation of the body of a dead person in accordance with the principles laid down in the Vedas is called Naramedha Yajna. Another type of misconception has aroused because of change in the technique of doing things. For example, it is common to see violence on cows (injection etc) while extracting milk. This experience read with Vedas saying that Milk is good will creates confusion in the mind of the ignorant. Vedas not only suggests on extracting the milk from cow, but also suggests to do so with love and care. In everyday life in India milk is very useful and popular. Honey also is largely used by any means. So there is a question from the ethical angle that if meat is an animal products, why not honey and milk? Extracting honey is like snatching away bees food. But that s not the intent. Honey can be extracted without harming the bees. At present for

6 66 large scale production, honey is collected in a scientific method. As soon as level of honey reaches the height of a box, it starts flowing down through the outer wall of box and is collected. So only extra honey, which was not essential for bees is collected and thus it can be consumed. But meat on the other hand cannot be obtained by love and care from living animals. Moreover according to the Ayurveda, human body is suitable for only vegetarian food. 4.2 Criticism from Western perspective In the previous chapter we discussed ancient views about animals beginning with Aristotle. Hipocritus ( BC) is said to be the pioneer of the treatment of animal although he had no direct contribution in the discipline. Aristotle is considered to be the pioneer of veterinary science in Greece. Historia Animalium, De Partibus Animalium, De Genetaline Animalium, Problem Acticum Hippocritus was written by Aristotle between 383 to 322 BC. Reflection of his view can be traced in the Bible regarding the status of the animal. According to the Old Testament, the sole purpose of creating animals was for meeting different requirements of human. Aristotle, in his texts has considered animals as less sensitive than human beings. The reason being, according to him, animals reside in a lower sphere and they do have more hydrated food. Similar kind of view has been supported by St. Aquinas. As a result animals were treated like a property by people. The Western world was highly influenced by the views of Aristotle and the religious book Bible and people were inculcated in such anthropocentric views. Aristotle had projected

7 67 nature as a hierarchical structure where non intellectuals were dependent on the intellectuals. Even their existence was meant for the intellectuals. He believed that plants were created for the animals which eat them and all the animals (wild or domestic) have been created for food and other use of us. According to him, since all the creations were made for some specific reason therefore, it is evident that all the non-human has been created for human. In other words he has accepted that animals are meant for the use of human, they have only instrumental value and have no intrinsic value. St. Aquinas has repeated almost same kind of view. He classified sin and described sin against human; but nowhere does he mention sin against animal. It means animals have no intrinsic value. According to the traditional Western Classical view God delivered the right to human to rule over the nature, to become lord of the nature. But we do not find any guideline in those views as to how human is to use nature. According to these views destroying plants and animals is not a sin unless it makes some damages to human. Human is liable to be ethical only to other human being. Descartes, the modern philosopher seem to relay the same heritage of his ancestors. He has projected nature as a machine and human as the driver of the same. On the other hand, the German philosopher Kant believes that only those who have rational autonomy, only have intrinsic value and others have instrumental value. He always describes man as a goal not as a means. But animals have always been

8 68 treated as a means in human society. John Passmore in his book Mans Responsibility for Nature, Ecological Problem and Western Tradition has narrated that the views of Descartes and Kant has initiated anthropocentric views which basically is a reflection of Aristotelian and the view of Bible. He also feels that the Western attitude towards animals is somewhat diversified and somewhat influenced by the religious thoughts. T.K. Hoffman in his book Environment and Ethics has said that technological control over the nature has affected it in such a level that it has stated taking revenge. Nature is objecting on the control of its natural course. Human and animals both are affected by its reactions. In Kant s theory of ethics there is mention of a term Indirect Duty. Kant has said that we have indirect duty towards animals. I will not hit any dog for the reason that the expression of violence will give birth to more violent nature. Moreover that can cause harm to the dog s master. Kant has agreed to intrinsic value for all. He has said that one should consider even self as a goal and not as only means. Kant has not accepted that animals have rights. He also considers that animals do not have rationality. In 20 th Century, Peter Singer may be called the founder of animal ethics. His book Animal Liberation is known as the Bible of animal ethics. He did not raise the question regarding the intelligence of

9 69 animals; instead he raised the question regarding our rights to exploit animals. The question is that if any creature does not belong to our species then do we have the right to exploit them? If we have sympathy for our own species and if we do not exploit less intelligent people they why should we behave differently towards animals? Human beings exploit animals in different ways directly or indirectly. By the term exploitation Peter Singer implies meaningless barbaric behavior. In order to fulfill one s own happiness, need and comfort and to carry out different experiments for the upliftment of science, people have continued various types of experiments and analogies on animals for more than a century. In most of the cases the experiment results in death of the animal. Upliftment of human civilization will be restricted if killing of animals is prohibited in order to manufacture life saving medicines. In this case, Singer has not supported it. Singer does not feel that people are at fault where they do not have any alternative but to kill animals. For example, without killing animals the Eskimos in the Antarctica will die of hunger as they do not have any other alternative source of food. But we should never use animals wrongfully. Environment moral scientist Tom Regan has rejected Kant s Indirect Duty. On the other hand he has also discarded Peter Singer s utilitarianism. Ethical philosopher Regan thinks that animals have ethical state just like human beings and that is established on rights and not on any utilitarian ethics. He has said clearly that it will be

10 70 morally incorrect if any intrinsic valued material or thing is used as means and not as goal. In the case of animal s he has expanded Kant s concept of morality. Animals are used for research work, hunted for business purpose etc. Regan calls it exploitation. Regan s main view is that one who has one s own value or has intrinsic value has right and this right helps to improve eternal truth. Singer was utilitarian. Utilitarianism implies protecting the interest of the majority. It s a general view that most of the natural entities cannot think of their welfare including animals. Overexploitation of nature can lead to a major portion of living entities into a helpless condition which could be reduced to their question of existence and thus is against the interest of the majority. For this reason Singer is against the exploitation of animal or nature. On the other hand, Tom Regan is only against exploitation of animal or nature on the context that they have intrinsic values. Some theories accept because of physical structure ability of man and animal are different. Therefore, the animals are incapable of performing fine works or complex thinking. One has to consider this aspect of animal. A five year old animal is more self sufficient than a five year old human child. Difference in their intelligence can be noticed as was discussed in the introduction. They can feel joy and sorrow, can express their choice. It can easily be understood, without being an animal lover one can feel that animals follow certain norms. Therefore, unlike the applied or practical ethicists it can be said that

11 71 non-human can be the subject of ethical consideration even if they are not equal to human beings. On the other hand, ethicist Goodpaster said that moral consideration is the primary question to us. He separates moral consideration from moral significance. He has also separated rights from moral consideration. He questioned whether a tree is eligible for moral consideration. Whether a tree requires to be morally considered as a dog or a human being is more considerable (morally) than a dog. William T. Blackstone said in his book The Science of Ecology and Ethics that it is true that Science and Technology has removed some of our problems and opened different ways but we have no right to exploit nature in the name of development. From the above study it can be concluded that some views have a general tendency of considering non-human animal as inferior to human and Aristotle had mentioned some points in support to their views. Like, animals living in a humid region take humid food whereas human take it as per their choice. The modern medical science also suggests humid food. Animals were protected by the army at the time of Aristotle although the protection was made for their own interest. Afterwards, this responsibility was transferred to the priests, but the condition of animals was not improved. According to Aristotle, St. Aquinas and Kant animals do not have intellect of reasoning. This concept has been objected on the ground that it cannot be said that

12 72 animals do not have the capacity of reasoning application on the ground that we do not understand their language. Aristotle also had the opinion that less responsiveness is due to short height. Against this view it can be said that there are human beings who have low height and if this view does not fit for them, it does not fit for animals also. Animals do not speak like human. Use of languages also differentiates human beings. It is important to remember that animals do communicate within each other using their own language and hence they are no less than human if considered from the perspective of use of language. Therefore, there is no point to underestimate animals only because they do not speak our language.

Philosophical approaches to animal ethics

Philosophical approaches to animal ethics What this lecture will do Clarify why people think it is important to think about how we treat animals Discuss the distinction between animal welfare and animal