Yes, me too. Like I said, cognitive dissonance. “I agree killing is bad, but I found a neat way to feed my sensual desire for meat while getting around the rule of not killing for food, so I can still cause killing and torture but not break the rule about buying meat, so, it must be ok! And I still think killing and torture are bad.”
1 Like
This seems very simple, and indeed this is how we live our lives most of the time. That is, predicting the future based on the past. But of course in reality we can’t predict the future. That idea that life ticks on in just the same way is part of the problem (it fosters adherence to rites and rituals), and it is useful to remember that every action that we do is based in a moment (set of causalities) that is unique and we should treat that moment with the respect it deserves because of that uniqueness.
So during this demand dropping phase would it be OK (even advisable?) to buy/eat meat from that shop, as this would be excess meat? Possibly discounted meat is preferable to undiscounted vegetables, as that could possibly (according to your supply and demand model) destroy more homes of animals and/or animals, which are killed during harvest?
These are just some follow up thoughts and questions to your statements, I’m not advocating either a meat based or meat free diet.
An interesting idea to consider: would meat be seen as such a necessity if those who partake were only able to consume unseasoned flesh? Would the desire persist if only heat were added, nothing else? Is it not the preparation that’s desirable, rather then the meat itself? An apple is delicious straight from the tree, but who could enjoy a fresh bite of pig, chicken, or cow? I’m not trying to start an argument, but it seems to me that not many meat eaters consider just how much preparation is needed to enjoy that particular food, and how much the time and energy that goes into its preparation is reinforcing the need to seek out satisfaction of that desire.
1 Like
Let’s think of someone deciding to make war with a country to remove and imprison an evil dictator. Say they are deciding based on compassion for the country’s people. They know that their decision will make many people die - not in that moment, but in future.
This person could say, like you, “of course in reality we can’t predict the future”. Yes based on past experience, sending armed troops into a country to remove a dictator generally results in a lot of death. And this is a decision is “based in a moment (set of causalities) that is unique and we should treat that moment with the respect it deserves because of that uniqueness.”
But we all know the reality of the situation. All of our reasoning tells us that there is an extraordinarily high likelihood that the decision will cause much death. Just so, the decision to buy meat gives an extraordinarily high likelihood that the decision will cause death.
So if we say that’s ok for meat, then that’s also ok for sending an army to war, right? Unless of course this reasoning is flawed, and that actually neither are ok by Buddhist standards.
If you buy what you are calling ‘excess’ meat, you are increasing the demand. Thus you are keeping the killing business more profitable than you would be if not buying. Thus you are reducing the need for the reduction of production. You are slowing the reduction, therefore. Thus you are contributing to death.
Let me give another situation. Let’s say that today, the killing of animals is outlawed, and we know that everyone will follow the law. IN that case, the meat remaining on the market will genuinely be ‘excess’, as you call it. In that case, demand no longer influences supply at all, because there is no longer any supply. All that has been supplied, has been supplied already. So then yes, in my opinion it would be totally fine from the perspective of Buddhist sīla to buy that meat.
Not if those sales affect supply. And generally they probably do. It;s still part of the overall income of the meat industry, and is factored in to their decision making process. If they made too much of a loss on meat that is getting old and has to be reduced in price, then they would make supply less, so that less meat is left unsold until it is too old. So buying that meat is preventing them from naturally deciding to supply less.
If you got the meat for free, for example from the bins behind supermarkets from stock they have discarded, then that would be fine in this context, since it does not give them any extra profit, and thus does not affect supply.
Demand would decrease, but not be eliminated. Demand for meat is based on sensual desire. Buddhists who buy meat are in almost every single case motivated primarily by sensual desire. Other possibilities include kindness, for wanting to offer the meat to someone else, but again this comes down to the fact that it would please that other person due to satisfying their sensual desire.
I have an image stuck in my mind of a Christmas dinner I had with some Tibetan lamas and at least one khenpo, watching them so happy in their sensual enjoyment of meat - rare, red beef. And the khenpo enjoying the squirming look of some students who out of compassion were vegetarian. This somehow captures this whole topic rather succinctly.
To be honest, soy beans require a lot more preparation than is needed for meat. I would say the main factor to consider, rather than time, has to be the stark fact that eating meat causes actual torture and murder, which are just about the worst thing any Buddhist can do.
1 Like
Yes. Plus it may also contribute to intensifying famine; mandates a caste system (any Buddhist who eats meat regularly relies on others to kill it, after it being raised for killing); contributes to deforestation and other environmental effects which create conditions for intense suffering by many beings; is un necessary; reinforces a culture of sensual indulgence which traps many…
If this were a matter of reason, the discussion would be done, debate clearly decided.
1 Like
Yes this factor is extremely important, and while not a significant factor in the Buddha’s time perhaps, is an essential point for us as Buddhists today.
Yes. What I was intending to do there was just to sound a note of caution. If you notice, immediately after this I indulged in my own bit of future prediction. My comment was intended, not only to act as a reflection on what had been previously been said, but also as a caveat to what I was about to say.
Actually, I think that maybe the reasoning is flawed, but in a different way, but I admit to not having thought it all the way through yet. I think that in your example you are maybe mixing up ‘motivation’ with ‘intention’, where my definition of ‘motivation’ is ‘reason for doing something’, and my definition of ‘intentions’ is the ‘plan of action’. In your example the motivation for me is the wish to remove an evil dictator, and the salient intention is killing which is part of the overall plan (war). But this is perhaps straying rather far off topic.
Ah right. Yes, so it would not be ‘excess’ meat in this case. They factor in the price reductions as part of their profit. I guess they do know this sort of thing these days, ‘big data’ and all that. I feel like one of those ageing politicians in the USA asking Mark Zuckerberg how the internet works when trying to question him over the latest Facebook scandal. 
I guess my understanding of supply and demand is somewhat old. 40 years back when I worked in a supermarket, those figures were not collected, so the sales of reduced produce did not affect supply.
At the end of each day some of the sandwich shops in the UK give their left over sandwiches to the homeless, so maybe this is OK too? Although I guess they might even factor this in and maybe even claim money back as a charitable donation! Who knows?
I guess that maybe eating roadkill is another blameless supply of meat along with ‘dumpster diving’?
Very good. Very interesting.
Your post reminded me of this stark sutta:
“And how is physical food to be regarded? Suppose a couple, husband & wife, taking meager provisions, were to travel through a desert. With them would be their only baby son, dear & appealing. Then the meager provisions of the couple going through the desert would be used up & depleted while there was still a stretch of the desert yet to be crossed. The thought would occur to them, ‘Our meager provisions are used up & depleted while there is still a stretch of this desert yet to be crossed. What if we were to kill this only baby son of ours, dear & appealing, and make dried meat & jerky. That way — chewing on the flesh of our son — at least the two of us would make it through this desert. Otherwise, all three of us would perish.’ So they would kill their only baby son, loved & endearing, and make dried meat & jerky. Chewing on the flesh of their son, they would make it through the desert. While eating the flesh of their only son, they would beat their breasts, [crying,] ‘Where have you gone, our only baby son? Where have you gone, our only baby son?’ Now what do you think, monks: Would that couple eat that food playfully or for intoxication, or for putting on bulk, or for beautification?”
“No, lord.”
“Wouldn’t they eat that food simply for the sake of making it through that desert?”
“Yes, lord.”
"In the same way, I tell you, is the nutriment of physical food to be regarded. When physical food is comprehended, passion for the five strings of sensuality is comprehended. When passion for the five strings of sensuality is comprehended, there is no fetter bound by which a disciple of the noble ones would come back again to this world.
1 Like
OK cool.
So let’s check this out. Let’s say I’m a politician, and my motivation is to save people, and my plan of action is to send troops in to the country to remove the dictator.
Now consider two possibilities:
- I know that the army will kill people, and I am complicit in that. Fully aware that that will be a consequence of my action.
- I am so naïve that I do not realise that sending an army to a country to remove a dictator, will mean that people will be killed by the army.
So now, is either of those ok for Buddhist ethics? 1) clearly not, because you are consciously causing death, at a far removed distance but causing nevertheless. 2) well I will leave that up to you to weigh in on how actions of killing based on good motivation but ignorance regarding the plan of action, are regarded.
Now, after considering that, we should consider for buying meat. Let’s say I am eager to buy meat, motivated by my desire for indulging in sensual pleasures. Regarding my plan of action to fulfil this desire, consider two possibilities:
- I know that buying meat will cause beings to be tortured and murdered, and I am complicit in that. Fully aware that that will be a consequence of my action.
- I am so naïve that I do not realise that buying meat, will cause beings to be tortured and murdered.
I suggest that we ought to apply our judgement for the two concerned with war, similarly to these two cases.
Even a simple independent baker is likely to sell bread at a reduced price at the end of the day, and factor all of that in. Business is business. Even in the Ancient world.
Maybe these days it is less obvious with big business, and fixed prices. As a teenager I wondered the markets of Asia - bargains were always easier to get at the end of the day, with perishable food especially. Though, in India, the first sale was also a good one - their first sale of the day is a special thing for them, something about luck, so that was sometimes a good time to strike a bargain too 
In England’s supermarkets they would through it away rather than give it away if is was getting too near the sell by date. They had other factors to worry about. So there was where I found my bargains as a hungry school kid!
That depends if you are depriving anyone else of it. If it’s you or the bin, then yes. If it’s you or a hungry meat eating homeless person, it becomes less clear. If it means he will go hungry and later on be bought some meat by a patron to ease his hunger, then there may be some responsibility on your part.
When it was me, I would give the meat to my homeless friend and his dog, and I would eat the rest. We had enough food between us to be well fed, and the food was from the bin, so I think that would seem acceptable. We were sometimes offered food but in that case usually not asked what we wanted. Still, he would eat the meat. I was happier that way, even though some of it would have been ok I think to eat, ethically speaking. However, had I accepted meat from a patron and been seen eating it, there would have been the chance that they offer it again in future. Since I was not asking for food (which makes this different from the situation of a monastic), I think it is ok not to accept it. But anyway their generosity was accepted by us and their meat eaten by my meat eating companions, human and canine.
Yes. Reminds me of my poor father when I insisted he take the pheasant in his basket (I didn’t have one) on a cycle ride together as a child. He was however quite happy once it was on our plates.
I’m not inclined to go completely off topic at this point and I think that discussing the difference between ‘motivation’ and ‘intention’, and what constitutes ‘intention’ and how that might inform our practice would do just that, but if I may stay on topic …
I guess we can apply this in lots of places to see what happens. I’ll just do a few that come to mind that are similar to your #1. scenario:
a. I drink milk or eat cheese which means that male calves are separated from their mothers early and slaughtered as a bi-product of the dairy industry, and I am complicit in that. Fully aware that that will be a consequence of my action. - I guess this is the vegan argument.
b. I eat eggs (even if they are free-range, organic eggs) which means that all of the male chicks are slaughtered at birth and turned into dog food, and I am complicit in that. Fully aware that that will be a consequence of my action. Again, this seems to be the main vegan ethical argument.
c. I know that by paying my taxes, that a portion of those taxes will go to the defence budget and people (and animals) will get killed as a result, and I am complicit in that. Fully aware that that will be a consequence of my action.
d. I vote for a politician who isn’t a devout pacifist, knowing that they are likely to send the troops to war (or vote for the troops to be sent to war) at some point in their career and people will get killed, and I am complicit in that. Fully aware that that will be a consequence of my action.
e. I travel on public transport knowing that this will increase demand for public transport terminals and routes and therefore result in more construction work which kills animals, and I am complicit in that. Fully aware that that will be a consequence of my action.
f. I eat (or use) wheat, barley, corn, hemp, etc., products even though I know at harvest time many small mammals and birds will get killed by the combine harvester, and I am complicit in that. Fully aware that that will be a consequence of my action. (The dogs love harvest time because they can pick up some tasty, freshly slaughtered baby mice by following the harvester).
g. I drive my car, even though I know that many insects will be killed as a result of this and there is an increased possibility that I may kill a larger animal or even a person, and I am complicit in that. Fully aware that that will be a consequence of my action.
How would you consider your actions in the light of these examples?
Yes. That’s true. I was really only talking about my experience in a 1970’s supermarket in England where these figures were just not collected. They would have no figures to differentiate discounted meat products from discounted vegetarian or vegan products. But with the advent of ubiquitous computers and data collection the supermarkets can now act more like the independent baker in your example, even down to knowing what loaf of bread I am likely to buy, just like my local baker does.
Yes. I was actually assuming the role of the hungry homeless (lay) person there. I wasn’t intending to take the meaty sandwich off them.
1 Like
a and b I agree, very unethical, quite directly causing torture and murder. Now for c, I seem to remember some kind of form in the UK where you can choose that your taxes will not go to support violent acts. I don.t know if that still is possible, or if it ever existed rather than being a part of my misunderstanding, but I think that system should nicely be available. For example when you invest money, you can choose even with the stock market, only ethical investments, and there are companies to help you with that.
But if there is no choice, and your taxes have to go to support war, then it should be fine to refuse to pay tax on that basis, and be willing to go to court for it. If you were willing for your money to be taken in tax but only for non-violent causes, I expect a good judge would have that arranged and let you go unpunished. Jus as conscientious objectors have been allowed to not fight in wars even when there was a draught.
Yes that sounds unethical. Unless the motivation for voting for them is because it is anticipated that they will cause less death and suffering than the other one who might win.
I would sat also the pollution and carbon footprint should be considered!
I think public transport is a lot better than personal transport, regarding pollution. Depends on the urgency of how quick you need to arrive, and whether your activities are benefitting people. And by how much. All a weigh up I think. But if you can walk everywhere, that’s the best. Or cycle. And then, if you take a bus and it is not full, and the government policy on bus routes and timetables is not affected by you getting on the bus, then that’s fine I think. And bus timetables in civilised countries are often based on compassion, such as supplying bus routes to far out places that would not be profitable for purely profit-driven companies, but give increased standard of life to those living out there.
Organic food is the most ethical of the commonly available options. Can also choose no-dig farming produce if that is available (look up Masanobu Fukuoka for example) - that’s maybe the most ethical. But this also comes to weighing things up. We could be Jain on the far extreme.
But even the Buddha had his monks filter water to prevent them from killing microscopic organisms, right? And not move about to stop killing worms on the road in the rainy season. So the Buddha was quite into non-killing even at human inconvenience, it would seem.
So I think going minimal is good in general. And giving life-long torture to an intelligent animal, before murdering them, is not minimal. But causing 100 times less suffering by injuring a few insects (100 time more of which would be injured in growing just the food to feed the animal-torture victim for you plate) is not so bad in comparison. For sure, do less if you can! But relatively that’s a whole lot less unskilful.
I don’t drive a car. Me personally, I value mammals’ lives more than insects, mainly because they have a far richer emotional life, and so I believe they experience dukkha more than insects - I see dukkha as referring specifically to emotional suffering.
But still, minimise. And drive carefully. But in general, don’t take personal transport if you don’t need to. And humble yourself if you do, and realise I would say especially the carbon footprint and other pollutions. So especially if you have to buy a car, the highest priority should be the efficiency of miles per gallon. Best, all electric. But as for me, just a bicycle is enough.
They would presumably still be totalling up their income, for example total monthly profits vs. expenditures and so on. Seeing what sells and what doesn’t, which items they are making a profit on, which a loss. I would suggest it would have been factored in somehow, even if not singled out, perhaps. Who knows. But anyway it is simple business logic.
Even then, that does not change my answer. Because you may be taking it from others. So you still have to factor that in. But if you took the meat part out and gave it to a meat eater, than would make it all straightforward.
It’s never been possible to do that in the UK, despite many decades of campaigning by Quakers and other Peace Churches. The closest that British campaigners have ever come to achieving anything was in 1981 when the Labour MP Alex Lyon unsuccessfully tried to insert a hypothecative amendment to a finance bill that would have allowed conscientious objectors to pay the military portion of their taxes to the Ministry of Overseas Development.
According to Wikipedia there’s no country in the world that presently allows hypothecation of the military portion of one’s tax payments, though Canada did allow it from the late 18th to mid-19th centuries with the aim of encouraging Quaker and Mennonite immigration.
5 Likes
Very interesting!
I would say that it should be ok for a Buddhist to pay for taxes under such circumstances. Following the law is important after all, even though not the highest importance.
It would be similar to being a prisoner, and only being offered non-veg food. There is no choice there, and the effort has been made to get veggie food, but they make the food regardless of whether you eat it (just as they will go to war regardless of whether you pay your portion of the tax), and the consequence is very dire if you don’t (prison if not pay tax; death if don’t eat). So I think those are fine by Buddhist ethics.
Eating meat when there is a choice, and when it affects supply, is a totally different matter however.
I agree, and I think that Right Intention is particularly relevant when we are making such choices.
1 Like