Human and animal rights



On this topic
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 1995 14:15:00 -0700
From: HARVEY Peter
Subject: Human and animal rights
Several people have pointed out that Buddhists should be wary of human rights talk if it implies other sentient beings have no rights (assuming humans do!).

As I see it, 'human rights' include:
i) rights in common with other sentient beings, eg. the right not to be tortured, or the right not to be deliberately killed. ii) rights peculiar to human beings, arising from specifically human qualities, eg. the right to free speech
iii) rights pecular to humans which arise, arguably, from a social contract: the right to expect a government to behave, or not behave, in certain ways. iv) rights peculiar to humans which arise through positive legislation in particular countries.

I'm not totally happy with this categorisation and the examples given: perhaps someone else can improve it.

Peter Harvey
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 1995 21:33:15 -0700
From: Ken O'Neill
Subject: Re: Human and animal rights
Peter Harvey contributes the following insight:

>Several people have pointed out that Buddhists should be wary of human rights
talk if it implies other sentient beings have no rights (assuming humans do!).

>As I see it, 'human rights' include:
>i) rights in common with other sentient beings, eg. the right not to be tortured, or the right not to be deliberately killed. ii) rights peculiar to human beings, arising from specifically human qualities, eg. the right to free speech
>iii) rights pecular to humans which arise, arguably, from a social contract: the right to expect a government to behave, or not behave, in certain ways. iv) rights peculiar to humans which arise through positive legislation in particular countries.

>I'm not totally happy with this categorisation and the examples given: perhaps someone else can improve it.

Peter's right. Buddhadharma does not contain vestiges of the European's Great Chain of Being, which puts humans just below angels, who in turn are below God; nor does it put humans on top of everything else. The horizontal line of Buddhism means "sarva sattva" - all sentient beings. Every daily bodhisattva ritual (including the various Zens) aims at pounding that point into human awareness.

So, the first step in applying rights to Buddhist thinking is to distinquish, as Peter suggests, between those qualities distinquishing human samsara from samsara in general.

Ken O'Neill
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 1995 01:40:24 -0400
From: williams
Subject: Re: Human and animal rights
At 02:15 PM 10/5/95 PDT, HARVEY Peter wrote:
SSeveral people have pointed out that Buddhists should be wary of human rights talk if it implies other sentient beings have no rights (assuming humans do!).

>As I see it, 'human rights' include:
>i) rights in common with other sentient beings, eg. the right not to be tortured, or the right not to be deliberately killed.

Mistreatment is a waste. No problem here.

>ii) rights peculiar to human beings, arising from specifically human qualities, eg. the right to free speech

We happen to be human, so we have an attachment... It's a bit problematical, but I think we have to accept the fact that we are human. I'd place the right of free association before all other rights -- it's our right to be part of dependent creation.

>iii) rights pecular to humans which arise, arguably, from a social contract: the right to expect a government to behave, or not behave, in certain ways.

I'd like to find something more "organic" than "social contract." Perhaps pointing more toward freeing the social beings from sorrow.

>iv) rights peculiar to humans which arise through positive legislation in particular countries.

Pure mechanism. A result which gets fed back into future activity.

-----
Sphere.
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 1995 06:37:07 -0400
From: Damien Keown <100012.3212@compuserve.com>
Subject: Human Rights/Animal Rights
On the question of the rights of animals, which has come up several times ...

I suggested that human rights in Buddhism are grounded in human dignity, and that human dignity derives from the fact that we are all potential Buddhas. This formulation also provides a basis for respect for animals, since they are also potential Buddhas.

However, I think it follows that animals are entitled to lesser respect than human beings. Why? Because their dignity is not equal to -- is lesser than -- that of human beings. This is because they have actualized their nirvanic potential to a lesser degree (this is clear from the fact that they have been born in a less auspicious realm). If this line of reasoning is correct, it would follow that they have fewer rights.

What rights would they have? I suggested in my paper that "human rights are in essence what justice requires if human good is to be fulfilled." It follows that animals rights are in essence what justice requires if animal good is to be fulfilled. In what does animal good consist? In the realization of whatever good animal nature allows. This may vary from species to species.

At a minimum it would include the right to life, since no animal can realise whatever potential it has unless it is alive. It would include a right to equal treatment and non-discrimination (as between others of its kind), a right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman (?) or degrading treatment or punishment, a right not to be arbitrarily detained (no factory farms?) ... etc etc I'm making this up as I go along - perhaps someone can help out.

The kind of rights animals would NOT have would be those peculiar to rational agents (eg a right to education) and rights related to features of human society (e.g. a right to marry, a right to a nationality).

Damien Keown
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 1995 07:43:12 +0100
From: Ulrike Holzer-Petsche
Subject: Re: Human Rights/Animal Rights
Since the question of the rights of animals has come up:

What is the Buddhist attitude towards animal experiments? I do not speak of deliberately and thoughtlessly inflicting suffering to animals, but of well planned experiments that try to minimize the suffering to the animals, but, of course, in the end involve the death of those beings. In order to help human beings suffering from various diseases (not all of which are self-inflicted by unhealthy life styles), we can, at present, not totally dispense with animal experiments. Are we to do away with all such experiments and tell the patients to just be content with those therapeutic measures we already have, or can we continue to look for better ways to help those people and be grateful to the animals helping us to reach this goal?

Ulrike Holzer-Petsche
Dept. Pharmacology
Univ. Graz
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 1995 08:37:55 -0400
From: Sally Clay
Subject: Re: Human Rights/Animal Rights
Ulrike Holzer-Petsche writes:

>What is the Buddhist attitude towards animal experiments? I do not speak of deliberately and thoughtlessly inflicting suffering to animals, but of well planned experiments that try to minimize the suffering to the animals, but, of
>course, in the end involve the death of those beings. In order to help human
>beings suffering from various diseases (not all of which are self-inflicted by
>unhealthy life styles), we can, at present, not totally dispense with animal
>experiments. Are we to do away with all such experiments and tell the patients
>to just be content with those therapeutic measures we already have, or can we
>continue to look for better ways to help those people and be grateful to the animals helping us to reach this goal?

I am reminded of the old Al Capp cartoon series "Lil Abner," in which schmoos were constantly laying down their lives for the benefit of humans. Schmoos are little animals shaped like bowling pins that are both friendly and good to eat, and eager to be of service however they can.

I think it that animals, too, can be boddhisattvas in their own way. And offering one's life for the benefit of others can be beneficial in the long run both to the bodhisattva and to the recipient of her generosity.

I know that Native Americans acted with this sort of motivation when they hunted buffalo (and other animals) and used the animals' bodies for food, clothing, housing, etc. This motivation included a profound respect for the animals and a sense of the sacredness of all life.

Perhaps someone more knowledgeable about this approach could comment.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sally Clay, Zangmo Blue Thundercloud
*** Northampton, Mass.
"Where the coffee is strong and so are the women."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 1995 14:30:00 +0100
From: "peter.harvey"
Subject: Human Rights /Animal Rights
Sally Clay writes:
'I think that animals, too, can be bodhisattvas in their own way. And offering one's life for the benefit of others can be beneficial in the long run both to the bodhisattva and to the recipient of her generosity'.

Where a being voluntarily chooses to give up his/her life, your argument works fine. But since when were the animals used in medical experiments given a 'choice'? Bodhisattvas volunteer themselves: they don't 'volunteer' other beings, whether these be humans or animals.

Peter Harvey
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 1995 15:45:39 +0200
From: M Clasquin
Subject: Re: Human Rights/Animal Rights -Reply
>>>Ulrike Holzer-Petsche
9/10/95, 08:43am >>>
Since the question of the rights of animals has come up:

What is the Buddhist attitude towards animal experiments? I do not speak of deliberately and thoughtlessly inflicting suffering to animals, but of well planned experiments that try to minimize the suffering to the animals, but, of course, in the end involve the death of those beings. In order to help human beings suffering from various diseases (not all of which are self-inflicted by unhealthy life styles), we can, at present, not totally dispense with animal experiments. Are we to do away with all such experiments and tell the patients to just be content with those therapeutic measures we already have, or can we continue to look for better ways to help those people and be grateful to the animals helping us to reach this goal?

Ulrike Holzer-Petsche
Dept. Pharmacology
Univ. Graz


A thorny question - consider that Buddhists do not even all agree on the subject of vegetarianism!

You stipulate that the experiments are well-planned and designed to minimise pain. I would further stipulate that all unnecessary duplication would need to be eliminated - across national boundaries too. This would deprive research scientists of the "scoop" they crave for, of course, but I believe a centralisation of all such experiments worldwide (not necessarily at the same facility, but approved through a central clearing-house) would be a good thing. There are too many postgrad biology students trying to see if they can outsmart their professors and all doing essentially the same thing .

Secondly, while your post refers to medical research, I would propose an immediate ban on all further *cosmetic* research. It is now possible for human beings to look like anything from Casanova to the monster from the black lagoon. We do not need new cosmetics & fragrances.

These are, of course, very peripheral answers. Ideally, I would like to see advances in tissue culture etc make such experiments totally unnecessary. FWIW, I am prepared to assert that a colony of skin cells in a petri dish does *not* constitute a sentient being!

On a personal level, when I am in a position where I need to take a life (such as when the cat brings in a mangled bird), I recite my personal little mantra "May you be reborn as a human being". I do not really think that my merit is so great as to actually cause this to happen - the purpose of this is for me to acknowledge that this is a karmic act, and not to fall into the trap of killing without being conscious of what I'm doing. But if it caught on, I imagine it would eventually just become another recited-by-rote little ritual - "So I killed my wife, but I recited the `may you be' mantra, so it doesn't count..."

Does that start to answer your question?

Michel Clasquin
University of South Africa
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 1995 16:17:07 +0100
From: Stephen Clark
Subject: Re: Human Rights/Animal Rights
It used to be a common theme of Christian sermons (and reappears in William James' essays) that `animals' virtuously surrender their lives for humans (and we are therefore entitled to claim those lives even if they seem to be doing their level best to avoid surrender!).

Forgive me if I find this sort of rationalisation completely nauseating.

I am sorry to intrude on this discussion: I'm not a Buddhist, though I have been strongly influenced by Buddhist writings, and by the example of good Buddhists.

I am well aware that not all Buddhists are vegetarian, and that there are as many rationalisations and excuses offered for the abuse of non-humans in Buddhist societies as in Christian or post-Christian ones. I am, however, very depressed that any Buddhists should continue to interpret the rare privilege of being a free-born human as a licence to oppress our brothers and sisters. THe very notion of there being a well-defined group of `human beings' is one that Buddhists ought to have abandoned (and which modern biologists have rendered very implausible).

There are, no doubt, good reasons to be glad that governments pay even lip-service to a system of law that is aimed to protect individual choices and well-being, even if only of those who can be regarded as mature human beings. I very much hope that Buddhists are not being sucked into affirming `human rights' at the very moment that we may be able to widen our view and seek to protect the choices and well-being of other creatures too.

See (for example) Peter Singer & Paola Cavalieri (eds) *The Great Ape Project * (Fourth Estate/St.Martin's PRess)

Stephen Clark
srlclark@liverpool.ac.uk

http://www.liv.ac.uk/~srlclark/philos.html
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 1995 19:14:43 -0400
From: "M. Jinavamsa"
Subject: Re: Human Rights/Animal Rights
just curious: the only Western philosopher I know of who spoke of animal rights at the core of his philosophy is the Kant-inspired 20th Cent. American philosopher CI Lewis (not the English writer CS Lewis), esp. in his The Ground and Nature of the Right. In any case, animal rights (the rights of non-human sentient beings) has not been central to much philosophical discussion in the West that I know of.
Are there, in fact, other Western philosophers who had this breadth of concern? in peace to all beings,
Jinavamsa


In a message dated 95-10-08 09:21:44 EDT, you write:

>j: Human Rights/Animal Rights
>Date: 95-10-08 09:21:44 EDT
>From: 100012.3212@compuserve.com (Damien Keown) Sender: JBE-L@PSUVM.PSU.EDU (jbe-l conference)
>Reply-to: JBE-L@PSUVM.PSU.EDU (jbe-l conference)
>To: JBE-L@PSUVM.PSU.EDU (Multiple recipients of list JBE-L)

>On the question of the rights of animals, which has come up several times
...

>I suggested that human rights in Buddhism are grounded in human dignity, and that human dignity derives from the fact that we are all potential Buddhas. This
>formulation also provides a basis for respect for animals, since they are also >potential Buddhas.

>However, I think it follows that animals are entitled to lesser respect than
>human beings. Why? Because their dignity is not equal to -- is lesser than
--
>that of human beings. This is because they have actualized their nirvanic potential to a lesser degree (this is clear from the fact that they have been
>born in a less auspicious realm). If this line of reasoning is correct, it would follow that they have fewer rights.

>What rights would they have? I suggested in my paper that "human rights are in
>essence what justice requires if human good is to be fulfilled." It follows that
>animals rights are in essence what justice requires if animal good is to be fulfilled. In what does animal good consist? In the realization of whatever good
>animal nature allows. This may vary from species to species.

>At a minimum it would include the right to life, since no animal can realise whatever potential it has unless it is alive. It would include a right to equal
>treatment and non-discrimination (as between others of its kind), a right not
>to
>be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman (?) or degrading treatment or punishment, a right not to be arbitrarily detained (no factory farms?) ... etc
>etc I'm making this up as I go along - perhaps someone can help out.

>The kind of rights animals would NOT have would be those peculiar to rational
>agents (eg a right to education) and rights related to features of human society
>(e.g. a right to marry, a right to a nationality).

>Damien Keown
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 1995 19:15:06 -0400
From: "M. Jinavamsa"
Subject: Re: Human Rights/Animal Rights
Re animal rights, experimentation, Am. Indian rites and values: 1. I don't know if it's mind reading or wishing thinking that suggests that animals are happily practicing daana while experiments are done on their bodies for the sake of (hopefully?) knowledge and "cures" ....

2. I have friends from the Oneida nation. They mentioned that the Lakota indians have this same respectful relation with the animals they hunt, eat, and otherwise utilize in their lives (re skins for pelts, bones for needles, etc) and the Cherokee, too, as described in the book The Education of Little Tree, by Forrest Carter, NYC: Delacorte Press, 1976; Albuquerque: U. of New Mexico Press, 1986,1991 .... There are other native tradtitions with this same sense of respectful interconnectedness (S. AMerican etc.) in peace for all familes in the human clan in the sentient-being family, Jinavamsa



In a message dated 95-10-09 08:47:00 EDT, you write:

>j: Re: Human Rights/Animal Rights
>Date: 95-10-09 08:47:00 EDT
>From: SallyClay@AOL.COM (Sally Clay)
>Sender: JBE-L@PSUVM.PSU.EDU (jbe-l conference)
>Reply-to: JBE-L@PSUVM.PSU.EDU (jbe-l conference)
>To: JBE-L@PSUVM.PSU.EDU (Multiple recipients of list JBE-L)

>Ulrike Holzer-Petsche writes:

>>What is the Buddhist attitude towards animal experiments? I do not speak of
>>deliberately and thoughtlessly inflicting suffering to animals, but of well
>>planned experiments that try to minimize the suffering to the animals, but,
>of
>>course, in the end involve the death of those beings. In order to help
hhuman
>>beings suffering from various diseases (not all of which are self-inflicted
>by
>>unhealthy life styles), we can, at present, not totally dispense with
aanimal
>>experiments. Are we to do away with all such experiments and tell the
ppatients
>>to just be content with those therapeutic measures we already have, or can
wwe
>>continue to look for better ways to help those people and be grateful to the animals helping us to reach this goal?

>I am reminded of the old Al Capp cartoon series "Lil Abner," in which schmoos
>were constantly laying down their lives for the benefit of humans. Schmoos are little animals shaped like bowling pins that are both friendly and good to eat, and eager to be of service however they can.

>I think it that animals, too, can be boddhisattvas in their own way. And offering one's life for the benefit of others can be beneficial in the long run both to the bodhisattva and to the recipient of her generosity.

>I know that Native Americans acted with this sort of motivation when they hunted buffalo (and other animals) and used the animals' bodies for food, clothing, housing, etc. This motivation included a profound respect for the animals and a sense of the sacredness of all life.

>Perhaps someone more knowledgeable about this approach could comment.

>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
SSally Clay, Zangmo Blue Thundercloud
> *** Northampton, Mass.
"Where the coffee is strong and so are the women."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 08:36:43 +0200
From: M Clasquin
Subject: Re: Human Rights/Animal Rights -Reply
>>>Stephen Clark 9/10/95, 05:17pm >>>

>I am sorry to intrude on this discussion: I'm not a Buddhist, though I have been strongly influenced by Buddhist writings, and by the example of good Buddhists.

No problem. An outside view can be the most illuminating one. Please keep on posting!

Michel Clasquin
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 01:34:24 -0700
From: Ken O'Neill
Subject: Re: Human Rights /Animal Rights
>Sally Clay writes:
>'I think that animals, too, can be bodhisattvas in their own way. And offering one's life for the benefit of others can be beneficial in the long run both to the bodhisattva and to the recipient of her generosity'.

>Where a being voluntarily chooses to give up his/her life, your argument works fine. But since when were the animals used in medical experiments given a 'choice'? Bodhisattvas volunteer themselves: they don't 'volunteer' other beings, whether these be humans or animals.

>Peter Harvey


Not to dis on you, but bodhisattva theory (see the Dashabhumika sutra) in these matters reverses the notion of choice. If an animal is a bodhisattva/ or if a bodhisattva is an animal, then it's pure choice for the benefit of others. We simply cannot humanize bodhisattvas, primarily since doing so runs against the grain of sutra tradtiions embodying the buddhadharma worldview. Separating persons from other life forms, is in the final analysis, more of a Great Chain of Being Christian notion than one of buddhadharma.

Cheers,

Ken O'Neill
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 20:11:33 -0700
From: Ken O'Neill
Subject: Re: Human Rights/Animal Rights
>On the question of the rights of animals, which has come up several times ...

>I suggested that human rights in Buddhism are grounded in human dignity, and that human dignity derives from the fact that we are all potential Buddhas. This
>formulation also provides a basis for respect for animals, since they are also potential Buddhas.


I'm sorry ,but human dignity has utterly nothing to do with buddhadharma - it lacks the great chain of being. Human dignity is pure samsara. How much human dignity can you imagine as you imagine world leaders sitting on the crapper?


>However, I think it follows that animals are entitled to lesser respect than human beings. Why? Because their dignity is not equal to -- is lesser than -- that of human beings. This is because they have actualized their nirvanic potential to a lesser degree (this is clear from the fact that they have been born in a less auspicious realm). If this line of reasoning is correct, it would follow that they have fewer rights.

You think "it follows" what. You've made an assertion, mostly an ad homiem (it's true because you say so) without slightest justification. Human dignity has nothing to do with being potential buddhas; where did you get such a strange idea? Certainly not from the wheel of becoming mandala or other teachings concerned with karmic embodiment in symbolic forms of consciousness.

>What rights would they have? I suggested in my paper that "human rights are in essence what justice requires if human good is to be fulfilled." It follows that
>animals rights are in essence what justice requires if animal good is to be fulfilled. In what does animal good consist? In the realization of whatever good
>animal nature allows. This may vary from species to species.

This is all fine, but it says more about your cultural origins than those of buddhadharma. Justice, again, is a gaijin idea.

>At a minimum it would include the right to life, since no animal can realise whatever potential it has unless it is alive. It would include a right to equal treatment and non-discrimination (as between others of its kind), a right not to
>be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman (?) or degrading treatment or punishment, a right not to be arbitrarily detained (no factory farms?) ... etc etc I'm making this up as I go along - perhaps someone can help out.

Being alive guarantees nothing. Buddhists would echo Gurdjieff's famous remark that the average person is born into a coffin in which they abide until death.

>The kind of rights animals would NOT have would be those peculiar to rational agents (eg a right to education) and rights related to features of human society
>(e.g. a right to marry, a right to a nationality).

You're notions of rights here really just point to cultural inflections of patterns of human behavior, not to breaking through samsara as cultural patterns of illusion.

Ken O'Neill