[Prev][Next][Index]
Re: The Ethics of Vegetarianism
namaskaram,
In article <3g3vm6$cak@ucunix.san.uc.edu> susarla@rice.edu (H. Krishna
Susarla) writes:
>
>
> Vegetarianism: A Means to a Higher End
>
> >From the book "The Hare Krishna Book of Vegetarian Cooking"
> By Adiraja Dasa
>
> (c) 1989 The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust International
> Used with permission
>
> Ethics
>
> Many people consider the ethical reasons the most important of all for
> becoming vegetarian. The beginning of ethical vegetarianism is the
> knowledge that other creatures have feelings, and that their feelings
are
> similar to ours. This knowledge encourages one to extend personal
> awareness to encompass the suffering of others.
>
> In an essay titled "The Ethics of Vegetarianism," from the journal of
the
> North American Vegetarian Society, the conception of "humane animal
> slaughter" is refuted. "Many people nowadays have been lulled into a
sense
> of complacency by the thought that animals are now slaughtered
> 'humanely', thus presumably removing any possible humanitarian
> objection to the eating of meat. Unfortunately, nothing could be further
> from the actual facts of life...and death.
>
> The entire life of a captive 'food animal' is an unnatural one of
artificial
> breeding, vicious castration and/or hormone stimulation, feeding of an
> abnormal diet for fattening purposes, and eventually long rides in
intense
> discomfort to the ultimate end. The holding pens, the electric prods and
> tail twisting, the abject terror and fright, all these are still very
much a part
> of the most 'modern' animal raising, shipping, and slaughtering. To
accept
> all this and only oppose the callous brutality of the last few seconds
of the
> animal's life, is to distort the word 'humane'."
>
> The truth of animal slaughter is not at all pleasant-commercial
> slaughterhouses are like visions of hell. Screaming animals are stunned
by
> hammer blows, electric shock, or concussion guns. They are hoisted into
> the air by their feet and moved through the factories of death on
> mechanized conveyor systems. Still alive, their throats are sliced and
their
> flesh is cut off while they bleed to death. Why isn't the mutilation and
> slaughter of farm animals governed by the same stipulations intended for
> the welfare of pets and even the laboratory rat?
>
> Many people would no doubt take up vegetarianism if they visited a
> slaughterhouse, or if they themselves had to kill the animals they ate.
Such
> visits should be compulsory for all meat eater..
>
> Pythagoras, famous for his contributions to geometry and mathematics,
> said,
the Roman author Plutarch wrote:
> Leo Tolstoy wrote
Pythagoras said,
> Leonardo da Vinci wrote
> Mahatma Gandhi felt
this is my first post using my account. i have been reading the posts for
a while and have never ventured to participate. so here goes...
why do we always have to justify our INDIVIDUAL views by quoting some
famous being? for every person quoted for advocating vegetarianism, there
is a meat advocate you have conveniently omitted. just like politics you
are playing the positioning game in lying your way to the right side.
IMHO, why can't we admit that this world is made up of different people
and everybody has a right to exist as long as they don't harm a fellow
human being. if i was like you, you wouldn't have a bone to pick with me!
who are all these famous people to judge the aspect of meat-eating? are
they experts on this? does bill gates have the right to judge meat-eaters
just because he happens to be a computer whiz?
let us approach issues of such contention with basic logic. it is basic
natural human tendency to try to convert other people to one's own
convictions, however much the right of every person to believe in their
own faith is argued for!
mohan draksharam
