| Weekly | Gaudya Vaishnavism | Authentic Meditation | Sacred Initiation | Guru | Life-Style | Purification | Dharma | Karma | Bhakti |
| Home | Philosophy | Vegetarianism | Reincarnation | Secrets | Vedic Literature | Ekadasi | Links | Contact Us | Donations |
| Why be a Vegetarian? |
On the spiritual path, there are several reasons why a person is recommended to be vegetarian. One primary
reason is that we need to see the spiritual nature within all living beings, and that includes the animals and
other creatures as well. Universal brotherhood means nonviolence to both humans and animals. It consists of
understanding that animals also have souls. They are alive, conscious, and feel pain. And these are the
indications of the presence of consciousness, which is the symptom of the soul. Even the Bible (Genesis 1.21;
1.24; 1.30; 2.7; and in many other places) refers to both animals and people as nefesh chayah, living souls.
Those who eat meat, however, because of their desires to eat animals or see them as a source of food for one’
s stomach, are not so easily able to understand the spiritual nature of all beings. After all, if you know that all
living entities are spiritual in essence, and that all living beings that are conscious show the symptoms of the
soul within, then how can you kill them unnecessarily? Any living creature is also the same as we are in the
respect that it is also a child of the same father, a part of the same Supreme Being. Thus, the killing of animals
shows a great lack in spiritual awareness.
Many portions of the Vedic literature describe how the Supreme Being is the maintainer of innumerable living
entities, humans as well as the animals, and is alive in the heart of every living being. Only those with spiritual
consciousness can see the same Supreme Being in His expansion as Supersoul within every creature. To be
kind and spiritual toward humans and be a killer or enemy toward animals is not a balanced philosophy, and
exhibits one’s spiritual ignorance.
The next reason for being vegetarian is to consider the amount of fear and suffering that animals experience in
the slaughter industry. There are countless stories of how in fear cows cry, scream, and sometimes fall down
dead while inside or even before they are taken into the slaughter house. Or how the veins of dead pigs are so
big that it shows they have practically exploded from the fear the pig felt and the adrenalin that was produced
while it was being led to slaughter. This certainly causes an immense amount of violence to permeate the
atmosphere, which goes out and falls back on us in some form. Furthermore, the adrenalin and fear in the
animal also produces toxins which then permeate the body of these animals, which meat-eaters ingest. People
who consume such things cannot help but be effected by it. It causes tensions within them individually, which
then spreads in their relations with others.
The ancient Vedic text of the Manu-samhita (5.45-8) says, “He who injures innoxious beings from a wish to give
himself pleasure never finds happiness, neither living nor dead. He who does not seek to cause the suffering of
bonds and death to living creatures, but desires the good of all beings, obtains endless bliss. . . Meat can never
be obtained without injury to living creatures, and injury to sentient beings is detrimental to the attainment of
heavenly bliss; let him therefore shun the use of meat.”
The Bible (Romans 14.21) also says, “It is neither good to eat flesh, nor to drink wine.” Another biblical
commandment (Exodus 23.5) instructs us to help animals in pain, even if they belong to an enemy.
The Buddhist scripture (Sutta-Nipata 393) also advises: “Let him not destroy or cause to be destroyed any life
at all, or sanction the acts of those who do so. Let him refrain from even hurting any creature, both those that
are strong and those that tremble in the world.” It is also said in the Buddhist scripture, the Mahaparinirvana
Sutra, “The eating of meat extinguishes the seed of great compassion.”
For Jews, the Talmud (Avodah Zorah 18B) forbids the association with hunters, not to mention engaging in
hunting.
In the New Testament Jesus preferred mercy over sacrifice (Matthew 9.13; 12.7) and was opposed to the
buying and selling of animals for sacrifice (Matthew 21.12-14; Mark 11.15; John 2.14-15). One of the missions of
Jesus was to do away with animal sacrifice and cruelty to animals (Hebrews 10.5-10).
We especially find in Isaiah where Jesus scorns the slaughter and bloodshed of humans and animals. He
declares (1.15) that God does not hear the prayers of animal killers: “But your iniquities have separated you
and your God. And your sins have hid His face from you, so that He does not hear. For your hands are stained
with blood. . . Their feet run to evil and they hasten to shed innocent blood. . . they know not the ways of
peace.” Isaiah also laments that he saw, “Joy and merrymaking, slaughtering of cattle and killing of sheep,
eating of meat and drinking of wine, as you thought, ‘let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.’” (22.13)
It is also established in the Bible (Isaiah 66.3), “He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man.” In this regard St.
Basil (320-379 A.D.) taught, “The steam of meat darkens the light of the spirit. One can hardly have virtue if one
enjoys meat meals and feasts.”
Thus, we should find alternatives to killing animals to satisfy our appetites, especially when there are plenty of
other healthy foods available. Otherwise, there must be reactions to such violence. We cannot expect peace in
the world if we go on unnecessarily killing so many millions of animals for meat consumption or through abuse.
The third factor for being vegetarian is karma. As the second law of thermodynamics states, for every action
there must be an equal and opposite reaction. On the universal scale this is called the law of karma, meaning
what goes around comes around. This affects every individual, as well as communities and countries. As the
nation sows, so shall it reap. This is something we should take very seriously, especially in our attempt to bring
peace, harmony, and unity into the world. If so much violence is produced by the killing of animals, where do
you think the reactions to this violence goes? It comes back to us in so many ways, such as the form of
neighborhood and community crime, and on up to world wars. Violence breeds violence. Therefore, this will
continue unless we know how to change.
Isaac Bashevis Singer, who won the Nobel Prize in Literature, asked, “How can we pray to God for mercy if we
ourselves have no mercy? How can we speak of rights and justice if we take an innocent creature and shed its
blood?” He went on to say, “I personally believe that as long as human beings will go shedding the blood of
animals, there will never be any peace.”
In conclusion, we can mention the March 10, 1966 issue of L’Osservatore della Domenica, the Vatican weekly
newspaper, in which Msgr. Ferdinando Lambruschini wrote: “Man’s conduct with regard to animals should be
regulated by right reason, which prohibits the infliction of purposeless pain and suffering on them. To ill treat
them, and make them suffer without reason, is an act of deplorable cruelty to be condemned from a Christian
point of view. To make them suffer for one’s own pleasure is an exhibition of sadism which every moralist must
denounce.” Eating animals for the pleasure of one’s tongue when there are plenty of other foods available
certainly fits into this form of sadism. It stands to reason that this is counterproductive to any peace and unity
or spiritual progress we wish to make. It is one of the things we need to consider seriously if we want to
improve ourselves and/or the world. So here are a few reasons why a genuinely spiritual person will choose to
be vegetarian.
In the process of bhakti-yoga, devotion goes beyond simple vegetarianism, and food becomes a means of
spiritual progress. In the Bhagavad-gita Lord Krishna says, “All that you do, all that you eat, all that you offer
and give away, as well as all austerities that you may perform, should be done as an offering unto Me.” So
offering what we eat to the Lord is an integral part of bhakti-yoga and makes the food blessed with spiritual
potencies. Then such food is called prasadam, or the mercy of the Lord.
The Lord also describes what He accepts as offerings: “If one offers Me with love and devotion a leaf, a flower,
fruit or water, I will accept it.” Thus, we can see that the Lord accepts fruits, grains, and vegetarian foods. The
Lord does not accept foods like meat, fish or eggs, but only those that are pure and naturally available without
harming others.
So on the spiritual path eating food that is first offered to God is the ultimate perfection of a vegetarian diet.
The Vedic literature explains that the purpose of human life is reawakening the soul’s original relationship with
God, and accepting prasadam is the way to help us reach that goal.
reason is that we need to see the spiritual nature within all living beings, and that includes the animals and
other creatures as well. Universal brotherhood means nonviolence to both humans and animals. It consists of
understanding that animals also have souls. They are alive, conscious, and feel pain. And these are the
indications of the presence of consciousness, which is the symptom of the soul. Even the Bible (Genesis 1.21;
1.24; 1.30; 2.7; and in many other places) refers to both animals and people as nefesh chayah, living souls.
Those who eat meat, however, because of their desires to eat animals or see them as a source of food for one’
s stomach, are not so easily able to understand the spiritual nature of all beings. After all, if you know that all
living entities are spiritual in essence, and that all living beings that are conscious show the symptoms of the
soul within, then how can you kill them unnecessarily? Any living creature is also the same as we are in the
respect that it is also a child of the same father, a part of the same Supreme Being. Thus, the killing of animals
shows a great lack in spiritual awareness.
Many portions of the Vedic literature describe how the Supreme Being is the maintainer of innumerable living
entities, humans as well as the animals, and is alive in the heart of every living being. Only those with spiritual
consciousness can see the same Supreme Being in His expansion as Supersoul within every creature. To be
kind and spiritual toward humans and be a killer or enemy toward animals is not a balanced philosophy, and
exhibits one’s spiritual ignorance.
The next reason for being vegetarian is to consider the amount of fear and suffering that animals experience in
the slaughter industry. There are countless stories of how in fear cows cry, scream, and sometimes fall down
dead while inside or even before they are taken into the slaughter house. Or how the veins of dead pigs are so
big that it shows they have practically exploded from the fear the pig felt and the adrenalin that was produced
while it was being led to slaughter. This certainly causes an immense amount of violence to permeate the
atmosphere, which goes out and falls back on us in some form. Furthermore, the adrenalin and fear in the
animal also produces toxins which then permeate the body of these animals, which meat-eaters ingest. People
who consume such things cannot help but be effected by it. It causes tensions within them individually, which
then spreads in their relations with others.
The ancient Vedic text of the Manu-samhita (5.45-8) says, “He who injures innoxious beings from a wish to give
himself pleasure never finds happiness, neither living nor dead. He who does not seek to cause the suffering of
bonds and death to living creatures, but desires the good of all beings, obtains endless bliss. . . Meat can never
be obtained without injury to living creatures, and injury to sentient beings is detrimental to the attainment of
heavenly bliss; let him therefore shun the use of meat.”
The Bible (Romans 14.21) also says, “It is neither good to eat flesh, nor to drink wine.” Another biblical
commandment (Exodus 23.5) instructs us to help animals in pain, even if they belong to an enemy.
The Buddhist scripture (Sutta-Nipata 393) also advises: “Let him not destroy or cause to be destroyed any life
at all, or sanction the acts of those who do so. Let him refrain from even hurting any creature, both those that
are strong and those that tremble in the world.” It is also said in the Buddhist scripture, the Mahaparinirvana
Sutra, “The eating of meat extinguishes the seed of great compassion.”
For Jews, the Talmud (Avodah Zorah 18B) forbids the association with hunters, not to mention engaging in
hunting.
In the New Testament Jesus preferred mercy over sacrifice (Matthew 9.13; 12.7) and was opposed to the
buying and selling of animals for sacrifice (Matthew 21.12-14; Mark 11.15; John 2.14-15). One of the missions of
Jesus was to do away with animal sacrifice and cruelty to animals (Hebrews 10.5-10).
We especially find in Isaiah where Jesus scorns the slaughter and bloodshed of humans and animals. He
declares (1.15) that God does not hear the prayers of animal killers: “But your iniquities have separated you
and your God. And your sins have hid His face from you, so that He does not hear. For your hands are stained
with blood. . . Their feet run to evil and they hasten to shed innocent blood. . . they know not the ways of
peace.” Isaiah also laments that he saw, “Joy and merrymaking, slaughtering of cattle and killing of sheep,
eating of meat and drinking of wine, as you thought, ‘let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.’” (22.13)
It is also established in the Bible (Isaiah 66.3), “He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man.” In this regard St.
Basil (320-379 A.D.) taught, “The steam of meat darkens the light of the spirit. One can hardly have virtue if one
enjoys meat meals and feasts.”
Thus, we should find alternatives to killing animals to satisfy our appetites, especially when there are plenty of
other healthy foods available. Otherwise, there must be reactions to such violence. We cannot expect peace in
the world if we go on unnecessarily killing so many millions of animals for meat consumption or through abuse.
The third factor for being vegetarian is karma. As the second law of thermodynamics states, for every action
there must be an equal and opposite reaction. On the universal scale this is called the law of karma, meaning
what goes around comes around. This affects every individual, as well as communities and countries. As the
nation sows, so shall it reap. This is something we should take very seriously, especially in our attempt to bring
peace, harmony, and unity into the world. If so much violence is produced by the killing of animals, where do
you think the reactions to this violence goes? It comes back to us in so many ways, such as the form of
neighborhood and community crime, and on up to world wars. Violence breeds violence. Therefore, this will
continue unless we know how to change.
Isaac Bashevis Singer, who won the Nobel Prize in Literature, asked, “How can we pray to God for mercy if we
ourselves have no mercy? How can we speak of rights and justice if we take an innocent creature and shed its
blood?” He went on to say, “I personally believe that as long as human beings will go shedding the blood of
animals, there will never be any peace.”
In conclusion, we can mention the March 10, 1966 issue of L’Osservatore della Domenica, the Vatican weekly
newspaper, in which Msgr. Ferdinando Lambruschini wrote: “Man’s conduct with regard to animals should be
regulated by right reason, which prohibits the infliction of purposeless pain and suffering on them. To ill treat
them, and make them suffer without reason, is an act of deplorable cruelty to be condemned from a Christian
point of view. To make them suffer for one’s own pleasure is an exhibition of sadism which every moralist must
denounce.” Eating animals for the pleasure of one’s tongue when there are plenty of other foods available
certainly fits into this form of sadism. It stands to reason that this is counterproductive to any peace and unity
or spiritual progress we wish to make. It is one of the things we need to consider seriously if we want to
improve ourselves and/or the world. So here are a few reasons why a genuinely spiritual person will choose to
be vegetarian.
In the process of bhakti-yoga, devotion goes beyond simple vegetarianism, and food becomes a means of
spiritual progress. In the Bhagavad-gita Lord Krishna says, “All that you do, all that you eat, all that you offer
and give away, as well as all austerities that you may perform, should be done as an offering unto Me.” So
offering what we eat to the Lord is an integral part of bhakti-yoga and makes the food blessed with spiritual
potencies. Then such food is called prasadam, or the mercy of the Lord.
The Lord also describes what He accepts as offerings: “If one offers Me with love and devotion a leaf, a flower,
fruit or water, I will accept it.” Thus, we can see that the Lord accepts fruits, grains, and vegetarian foods. The
Lord does not accept foods like meat, fish or eggs, but only those that are pure and naturally available without
harming others.
So on the spiritual path eating food that is first offered to God is the ultimate perfection of a vegetarian diet.
The Vedic literature explains that the purpose of human life is reawakening the soul’s original relationship with
God, and accepting prasadam is the way to help us reach that goal.
| Ethics Russ Shafer Landau |
Is it wrong to raise and kill animals so that human beings can eat meat and fish? Does it stop being wrong if the
processes involved are carried out humanely? Eating animals poses two moral problems: Is it wrong in principle
to raise and kill animals so that human beings can eat meat and fish? Does it stop being wrong if the processes
involved are carried out humanely?
Eating animals is also criticized on health and ecological grounds, but this article only deals with wrongs to the
animals involved. If you accept that animals have rights, raising and killing animals for food is morally wrong. An
animal raised for food is being used by others rather than being respected for itself. In philosopher's terms it
is being treated as a means to human ends and not as an end in itself. This is a clear violation of the animal's
rights.
No matter how humanely an animal is treated in the process, raising and killing it for food remains morally wrong.
But: This is using 'rights' in a rather technical philosophical sense. When people talk about animal rights
colloquially, they are usually talking about animal interests.
Violated Interests
Even the most humane forms of rearing and killing animals for food always violates the animal's most basic
interest - to continue living. Modern agriculture often violates other key animal interests as well - for example:
• to live in natural (or at least, decent) conditions
• to make free choices
• to be free from fear and pain
• to live healthy lives without needing medical intervention
• to eat a natural diet
• to enjoy the normal social/family/community life of its species
Human Interests Versus Animal Interests
Many human beings don't believe animals have rights, but do think that animals have important interests that
should not be violated. But some of these people enjoy eating meat and fish, and so face a conflict between
animal and human interests: the trivial human interest in eating meat versus the basic animal interest in staying
alive. The human interest is classed as trivial because human beings don't need to eat meat in order to live. The
animal interest in staying alive is classed as basic, because if the animal is killed then all its other interests are
frustrated as well.
• Ethical question: Should the trivial human interest in eating meat be satisfied
at the expense of the animal interest in staying alive?
The Rights Argument Against Eating Animals
The rights argument is based only on not violating rights. It disregards the consequences of eating animals. The
argument goes like this:
• Higher non-human animals have rights
• The most basic right is the right to be treated as an end in oneself, not as a means to someone else's
ends
• Raising and killing animals for food uses them as a means to human gratification, it does not treat
them respectfully as ends in themselves
• Eating animals is therefore wrong
• There is no important human need to be considered in this case
• Philosophers who respect rights and accept that animals have rights should be vegetarians
Problem: Surely one person not eating animals will have no effect on whether animals are raised and killed for
food - so there's no point in being a vegetarian...
Wrong! The pointlessness of a single person removing meat from their diet is irrelevant to the rights argument for
being a vegetarian - if something is wrong, a moral person should not do it.
The Consequentialist (Utilitarian) Argument
This sort of argument is based entirely on the results of an action (or the total result of a lot of similar actions). It
is only concerned with the consequences of eating animals. The argument goes like this:
• We should act so as to increase the amount of goodness in the world
• Raising and killing animals for food is cruel and so reduces the total amount of goodness in the world
• If everyone was a vegetarian, there would be no demand for meat
• If there were no demand for meat no one would raise and kill animals for food
• Therefore if everyone was a vegetarian, the total amount of goodness in the world would be higher
• Therefore everyone should be a vegetarian
You may want to ask yourself whether it matters that individual consumers don't themselves commit the wrongful
acts of raising and killing the animals.
Problems With the Consequentialist Argument
If it is true that the world would be a better place if everyone was a vegetarian, does it follow that any particular
individual should be a vegetarian? Some philosophers say it doesn't. They say: The meat business is so huge that
the loss of an individual consumer will make no difference to it, and so will make no difference to the amount of
goodness in the world.
Other philosophers disagree, and say: Someone who eats meat is approving of and collaborating in the wrongful
acts of the agriculture business, and it is morally wrong to approve of and collaborate in wrongful acts, even
indirectly.
The first philosopher might reply: Because the meat business is so huge, the indirect participation or
nonparticipation of an individual in any wrongful acts that the industry may carry will not influence the continuing
of those acts. Since an individual's acts do not cause or encourage the wrong-doing to take place, they are not
themselves morally wrong.
The Virtue Argument
Virtue ethics regard the motivation and character of a person as crucial to whether an act is good or bad. A
morally good act is one that a virtuous person would carry out, and a morally bad act is one that they wouldn't.
Virtuous people live lives that demonstrate virtue. They are generous, kind and compassionate. People who
participate in a system that treats animals cruelly, and that kills animals to provide trivial pleasures to human
beings, are behaving selfishly, and not as a virtuous person would. Since their behaviour is not virtuous, their
behaviour is morally wrong,
whether or not it has any effect on whether people continue to raise and kill animals for food.
One must refuse (even symbolic) support of essentially cruel practices, if a comparably costly alternative that is
not tied to essentially cruel practices is readily available.
TOP
processes involved are carried out humanely? Eating animals poses two moral problems: Is it wrong in principle
to raise and kill animals so that human beings can eat meat and fish? Does it stop being wrong if the processes
involved are carried out humanely?
Eating animals is also criticized on health and ecological grounds, but this article only deals with wrongs to the
animals involved. If you accept that animals have rights, raising and killing animals for food is morally wrong. An
animal raised for food is being used by others rather than being respected for itself. In philosopher's terms it
is being treated as a means to human ends and not as an end in itself. This is a clear violation of the animal's
rights.
No matter how humanely an animal is treated in the process, raising and killing it for food remains morally wrong.
But: This is using 'rights' in a rather technical philosophical sense. When people talk about animal rights
colloquially, they are usually talking about animal interests.
Violated Interests
Even the most humane forms of rearing and killing animals for food always violates the animal's most basic
interest - to continue living. Modern agriculture often violates other key animal interests as well - for example:
• to live in natural (or at least, decent) conditions
• to make free choices
• to be free from fear and pain
• to live healthy lives without needing medical intervention
• to eat a natural diet
• to enjoy the normal social/family/community life of its species
Human Interests Versus Animal Interests
Many human beings don't believe animals have rights, but do think that animals have important interests that
should not be violated. But some of these people enjoy eating meat and fish, and so face a conflict between
animal and human interests: the trivial human interest in eating meat versus the basic animal interest in staying
alive. The human interest is classed as trivial because human beings don't need to eat meat in order to live. The
animal interest in staying alive is classed as basic, because if the animal is killed then all its other interests are
frustrated as well.
• Ethical question: Should the trivial human interest in eating meat be satisfied
at the expense of the animal interest in staying alive?
The Rights Argument Against Eating Animals
The rights argument is based only on not violating rights. It disregards the consequences of eating animals. The
argument goes like this:
• Higher non-human animals have rights
• The most basic right is the right to be treated as an end in oneself, not as a means to someone else's
ends
• Raising and killing animals for food uses them as a means to human gratification, it does not treat
them respectfully as ends in themselves
• Eating animals is therefore wrong
• There is no important human need to be considered in this case
• Philosophers who respect rights and accept that animals have rights should be vegetarians
Problem: Surely one person not eating animals will have no effect on whether animals are raised and killed for
food - so there's no point in being a vegetarian...
Wrong! The pointlessness of a single person removing meat from their diet is irrelevant to the rights argument for
being a vegetarian - if something is wrong, a moral person should not do it.
The Consequentialist (Utilitarian) Argument
This sort of argument is based entirely on the results of an action (or the total result of a lot of similar actions). It
is only concerned with the consequences of eating animals. The argument goes like this:
• We should act so as to increase the amount of goodness in the world
• Raising and killing animals for food is cruel and so reduces the total amount of goodness in the world
• If everyone was a vegetarian, there would be no demand for meat
• If there were no demand for meat no one would raise and kill animals for food
• Therefore if everyone was a vegetarian, the total amount of goodness in the world would be higher
• Therefore everyone should be a vegetarian
You may want to ask yourself whether it matters that individual consumers don't themselves commit the wrongful
acts of raising and killing the animals.
Problems With the Consequentialist Argument
If it is true that the world would be a better place if everyone was a vegetarian, does it follow that any particular
individual should be a vegetarian? Some philosophers say it doesn't. They say: The meat business is so huge that
the loss of an individual consumer will make no difference to it, and so will make no difference to the amount of
goodness in the world.
Other philosophers disagree, and say: Someone who eats meat is approving of and collaborating in the wrongful
acts of the agriculture business, and it is morally wrong to approve of and collaborate in wrongful acts, even
indirectly.
The first philosopher might reply: Because the meat business is so huge, the indirect participation or
nonparticipation of an individual in any wrongful acts that the industry may carry will not influence the continuing
of those acts. Since an individual's acts do not cause or encourage the wrong-doing to take place, they are not
themselves morally wrong.
The Virtue Argument
Virtue ethics regard the motivation and character of a person as crucial to whether an act is good or bad. A
morally good act is one that a virtuous person would carry out, and a morally bad act is one that they wouldn't.
Virtuous people live lives that demonstrate virtue. They are generous, kind and compassionate. People who
participate in a system that treats animals cruelly, and that kills animals to provide trivial pleasures to human
beings, are behaving selfishly, and not as a virtuous person would. Since their behaviour is not virtuous, their
behaviour is morally wrong,
whether or not it has any effect on whether people continue to raise and kill animals for food.
One must refuse (even symbolic) support of essentially cruel practices, if a comparably costly alternative that is
not tied to essentially cruel practices is readily available.
TOP
