Animal rights
No doubt we could do a whole conference on this, but just a though. Rawl's theory of justice (as I understand it) makes much of the idea of justice as based on what a person behind the 'veil of ignorance' would choose for society. Ie. If you did not know if you were going to be female or male, black or white, poor or rich... Could one not extend this and say: if you did not know whether you were going to be (reborn as) a human or a dog or a rabbit or a rat etc, how would one choose to set up the medical research process...?
Peter Harvey
At 12:24 09/10/95 +0100, peter.harvey wrote:
>No doubt we could do a whole conference on this, but just a though. Rawl's theory of justice (as I understand it) makes much of the idea of justice as based on what a person behind the 'veil of ignorance' would choose for society. Ie. If you did not know if you were going to be female or male, black or white, poor or rich... Could one not extend this and say: if you did not know whether you were going to be (reborn as) a human or a dog or a rabbit or a rat etc, how would one choose to set up the medical research process...?
An excellent suggestion, which brings in the principle of "Do unto others" which Buddhist texts constantly emphasise.
In general I see little justification for experimenation on animals from a Buddhist perspective. If we think animals have a right to life then it's difficult to justify fatality-causing experiments, regardless of the benefits which may (or may not) follow, or the fact that those conducting the experiments do so from the hightest motives.
We could go into this question at length, but it might take us away from the main theme.
Damien Keown
Damien Keown writes:
: In general I see little justification for experimenation on animals from a : Buddhist perspective. If we think animals have a right to life then it's : difficult to justify fatality-causing experiments, regardless of the : benefits which may (or may not) follow, or the fact that those conducting : the experiments do so from the hightest motives.
And here I think that we have a classic example of what is wrong with talking about rights, and about justice, from a Buddhist perspective (unless we are just talking about ``rights'' as skillful means, as rhetorical devices or as legal rules adapted to a particular society).
Of course it is difficult to justify ``fatality-causing experiments'' or any killing. It is impossible to justify killing. It is impossible to justify being killed. It is impossible to justify being born. It is impossible to justify //dukkha// or the causes of //dukkha//. It is impossible to justify that there is a path that leads to the cessation of suffering.
Facts are facts; they are not the sort of ``thing'' that can be ``justified''.
To say that animals have ``a right to life'' is to make a mockery of the whole idea of rights, because no matter how much we say that the animal has a ``right to life'' that animal is going to die. I am going to die. You are going to die.
And that is the truth.
--
Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH
Internet: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu
>Damien Keown writes:
>: In general I see little justification for experimenation on animals from a : Buddhist perspective. If we think animals have a right to life then it's : difficult to justify fatality-causing experiments, regardless of the : benefits which may (or may not) follow, or the fact that those conducting : the experiments do so from the hightest motives.
>And here I think that we have a classic example of what is wrong with talking about rights, and about justice, from a Buddhist perspective (unless we are just talking about ``rights'' as skillful means, as rhetorical devices or as legal rules adapted to a particular society).
>Of course it is difficult to justify ``fatality-causing experiments'' or any killing. It is impossible to justify killing. It is impossible to justify being killed. It is impossible to justify being born. It is impossible to justify //dukkha// or the causes of //dukkha//. It is impossible to justify that there is a path that leads to the cessation of suffering.
>Facts are facts; they are not the sort of ``thing'' that can be ``justified''.
>To say that animals have ``a right to life'' is to make a mockery of the whole idea of rights, because no matter how much we say that the animal has a ``right to life'' that animal is going to die. I am going to die. You are going to die.
>And that is the truth.
>--
>Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH
Internet: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu
I would like to say something about animal rights as a former activist for Greenpeace. This is the peace group that once had the photograph of a dead Yak skull on the cover of their magazine. In the background was a rather sad looking Tibetan nomad surrounded by a rather stark and ugly, red barren hillside. This was the kind thing I had to flog on a door to door canvass for eight months.
I received a lot of energy from promoting Greenpeace. I honestly believed in saving the whales. I studied spiritual ecology and books like "Dolphin Dreamtime". Sometimes I thought the whales were depending on us and were communicating to us, maybe through their sonar systems. I used to marvel at how musicians were trying to communicate to belugas.
One night I was really doing well on the canvass. I found myself in a neighbourhood caught on a carrier-wave of support for what Greenpeace was doing. I rang one door bell after the other and people were welcoming me and giving me money and examples of things they were doing to save the planet. It got to point I would just show-up on a doorstep, and when the door would open I would say: "Help save all the beings in the universe!", and I would be welcomed without hesitation.
Near that time I greatly admired HHDL when he boarded the Greenpeace vessel the Rainbow Warrior during the Earth Summit in Rio de Janiero.
may allbeings be well
mike wilson
aa793@freenet.carleton.ca
Peter Junger:
>To say that animals have ``a right to life'' is to make a mockery of the whole idea of rights, because no matter how much we say that the animal has a ``right to life'' that animal is going to die. I am going to die. You are going to die.
>And that is the truth.
So how about 'a right to a dignified life and a right to a dignified death'?
Not just for animals - perhaps we could extend that to humans too :-) --
Rayya
Rayya Ghul writes:
: Peter Junger:
:
: >To say that animals have ``a right to life'' is to make a mockery of
: >the whole idea of rights, because no matter how much we say that the
: >animal has a ``right to life'' that animal is going to die. I am
: >going to die. You are going to die.
: >
: >And that is the truth.
:
: So how about 'a right to a dignified life and a right to a dignified death'?
:
: Not just for animals - perhaps we could extend that to humans too :-)
Surely the right to go through life and death without ever once slipping on a banana peel also makes a mockery of the whole idea of rights.
--
Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH
Internet: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu