"The Question" recently at the Washington Post's On Faith website was "do animals have rights?" Typically for this site, none of the answers are from Buddhists. So I began to think about how I would answer the question.
From a Buddhist perspective, it seems to me the tricky part of this question is not "animals," but "rights." The concept of rights developed in western civilization over many centuries and came to fruition during the 17th century or so, in the work of Enlightenment philosophers such as John Locke. But there was no such concept in the world 25 centuries ago, during the time of the Buddha.
Rights are conditions or values to which humans are entitled by virtue of being human. Locke wrote of life, liberty, and property, for example. The On Faith editors cited efforts to rescue wildlife from the oil spreading in the Gulf of Mexico. "Do animals have rights?" they ask. "Do animals have souls? What does your faith say about animal consciousness, suffering, sacrifice and stewardship?"
Most of the answers to On Faith question are from people representing the Abrahamic religions -- Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Everyone agrees that it is virtuous to be kind to animals, but many answers assume that humans have a divine status that animals (or non-human animals, I should say) do not. Humans have souls, they write. Humans were created to have dominion over the creatures of the earth. Etc., etc.
Buddhism doesn't draw such a big, fat line between human and non-human life. The liturgies of many religions speak of mankind, but Buddhist liturgy calls for the liberation of all beings, not just human beings. In the great nexus of existence, all living creatures dependently co-exist.
The one advantage of human birth is the possibility of realizing enlightenment, and thus human life is treated with special care. However, the First Precept -- "I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking life" -- does not apply only to human life. Theravadins interpret the precept in Pali to refer to any life form that breathes and has consciousness. This includes people and all animal life, including insects, but not plant life. Some Mahayana teachers say the precept refers to all life forms, including plants, although as a practical matter sometimes weeds must be pulled and vegetables eaten.
I don't think you can say that Buddhism is opposed to the concept of rights. But some of the On Faith writers seem to imply that an animal's worthiness of being rescued hinges on its having a soul, or rights, or some other intrinsic value. Thinking this way is alien to Buddhism.
Suffering is suffering. Whether the being who suffers is somehow worthy of being relieved of suffering is not an issue. I guess you could say this amounts to "living being rights," but the more I think about it, the more I think "rights" is superfluous.
I agree. Putting it a different way: “Do unto all beings as you would have them do unto you.”
Barbara,
I hope you don’t think I’m going too much in a tangent here because I agree with you. But I want to explore a point you made in passing here.
I think about rights more and more, and I think about it as a staunch progressive, who thinks very deeply about what we colloquially refer to has “human rights.”
And the more I think about it, the more I think what we, in the West, call human rights is illusory.
Of course nobody should be penalized for religious practices, political opinions, poverty, etc.
But you come very close to what I’ve been thinking…
Rights are conditions or values to which humans are entitled by virtue of being human. Locke wrote of life, liberty, and property, for example.
“Rights” to “life, liberty, and property” are clearly abstractions about abstractions of the world in which we live.
And that should raise a few questions, I hope.
“Rights” as the condition of being human would include: the right to suffer, the right to be ignorant, the right to be able to kill, and of course the right to die.
These are all, all conditions or “values” that humans have as a result of their being human. But putting it that way gives “rights” all the appeal and flavor of leprosy.
Yes, it would include the “right” enlightenment, to the right to help alleviate others’ suffering, etc. Eh, but haven’t I poisoned the well already?
So I think basically “rights” is an empty term.
So saying Buddhism is “opposed” to the concept of human rights is a bit like saying Buddhism is opposed to unicorns in my view. And tales of unicorns might be useful to get the kids out of the burning house, or it might be used to condemn real people to suffering.
I don’t think you can say that Buddhism is opposed to the concept of rights. But some of the On Faith writers seem to imply that an animal’s worthiness of being rescued hinges on its having a soul, or rights, or some other intrinsic value. Thinking this way is alien to Buddhism.
Barbara; with this sentiment (”thinking this way is alien to Buddhism”) I tend to agree, but – and perhaps I am playing devil’s advocate – is that not the reason why people might perceive Buddhist to be “heartless”? Yes, Buddhist generally have compassion for all beings who suffer, but some Buddhist might even say that what an animal experience/”going through” is a result of its karma. Such thinking might amount to a judgment call and is it not better to simply act; safe the suffering being? Is Christianity then not “superior” (as some Christians would call it) or on the “moral high ground” (as a concept not as a reality) as Christians have a duty to “maintain Gods creation” (again using Christian terminology), whereas Buddhist merely abstain from doing harm?
Suffering is suffering. Whether the being who suffers is somehow worthy of being relieved of suffering is not an issue. I guess you could say this amounts to “living being rights,” but the more I think about it, the more I think “rights” is superfluous.
In respect of animals I agree that the phrase or concept what we call “rights” is superfluous, but surely the first precept will include saving another living being (and not merely abstaining)? Me thinks it is simply part of the evolution of mankind to have developed a compassionate heart and to help other beings. In that sense the precepts are rather a set of values that evolved with human beings as a natural consequence of us being human (i.e. animals have not yet evolved such values) and at some stage such values were developed into rights. Quiet clearly – it would seem – rights are not something given by a divine being, but rather something we as human beings developed during the course of our social interaction over millenia.
If it weren’t for the fact that you’ve commented here before I might think you were a Christian concern troll.
On the one hand, pretty much what we’re all “going through” is a result of karma. The fact that you’re sitting in a chair and reading words off a computer screen is a result of karma. But while karma as a cosmic system of reward and punishment is a pervasive folk belief in Asia, it is not what the Buddha taught about karma.
Further, compassion in Buddhism is active; it is not just sitting around feeling warm and fuzzy about things. We are charged to relieve the suffering of all beings. Several of the Jakata Tales, for example, are about a past emanation of the Buddha taking action, even giving his life, for the sake of an animal.
In Mahayana, it is understood that compassion comes from the wisdom that none of us is separate, but that we all co-exist together.
Review: “Buddhism and Compassion“; “Buddhism and Karma.”
surely the first precept will include saving another living being
Of course; I think that goes without saying, which is why I didn’t say it. I merely repeated the literally translation of the Pali, which I understand to be “I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking life.” But I believe it has always been understood that if one’s inaction causes a living being to die, that’s the same thing as “taking” the life.
Mumon — I started to write about the concept of “rights” being in conflict with shunyata, but decided I would save that for another post.
“Rights” to “life, liberty, and property” are clearly abstractions about abstractions of the world in which we live.
Yes, and so is “Mumon” and “Barbara.”
So saying Buddhism is “opposed” to the concept of human rights is a bit like saying Buddhism is opposed to unicorns in my view.
Well, I believe I clearly and specifically said that Buddhism is not opposed to the concept of rights, but let’s go on — concepts are concepts, and whether one is conceptualizing a unicorn or a horse, the concept itself has no intrinsic reality.
But it’s all concepts, and all designations are arbitrary. There is a great field of matter in which senses and nervous systems and conditioned brains sort phenomena into horses, Barbara, and Mumon, but ultimately it’s all a light show; a bubble and a dream.
what a silly discussion! all beings have rights … the ones every other being gives them… ie: when working in a slaughterhouse I killed beings…pigs, steers etc.. when a cow smelled the death of the place and panicked and smashed through wire fences and ran for 3 miles to get away… does that being deserve rights…respect … humans are not the only creatures who have a sense of self and of death… so why question the teaching… look in the eyes of a being about to be killed and compassion should sweep over you. If we all understood this all beings would have rights.. and we would take the vegtables and/or the meat and bow deeply before we eat… and then we should try to give back and respect all life because the next one taken could be mine (or yours).
lee — You’re not comprehending what we’re talking about. Calm down and read the post again.
Do other beings have rights? Do they have souls? Are they somehow different than humans? Are humans somehow superior to other living creatures? We think we are different because we can contemplate ourselves in the midst of the universe and wonder what it really is… we have assumed other creatures do not… my experience shows me all creatures are alive and know it… and they experience death and know it … mother critters love their young … etc. just because we pass laws to give people ‘rights’ does not mean they have rights… only individuals can grant rights to other individuals .. (of course the state can mandate rights as well as death)… but overall i feel it comes down to how this being treats that being…plant; animal or other human…
lee, please read the bleeping article and understand what it says before commenting. Thanks you.
If it weren’t for the fact that you’ve commented here before I might think you were a Christian concern troll.
Thanks for not doing so.
In Mahayana, it is understood that compassion comes from the wisdom that none of us is separate, but that we all co-exist together.
Precisely as I understood it. And that is why simply saving a suffering being – i.e. even lifting an ant out that accidentally have fallen into your water – with no need to bother about the issues whether said ant have a soul or rights. Too much thinking might just let the poor ant drown. In this sense there is much to say of Buddhism’s practical approach to life.
The one advantage of human birth is the possibility of realizing enlightenment, and thus human life is treated with special care.
Barbara, another advantage is the ability to think and understand. When we kill an animal (for food or sport), we know that we create suffering to the being. When cat catches a mouse to eat, it only sees its lunch on 4 feet. Yes we should recognise that animal have rights. Animals cannot recognise that other animals (lower down the food chain) have rights.
That’s the same thing as “human birth” It is the nature of human birth to generate thinking and understanding. Thinking is both an aid and a fetter, however.
Also, the “six realms” are not necessarily physical places. They can be understood also as psychological states through which we pass through every day. Understood that way, “human” is not necessarily about species.
I’ve never really understood rights as Rights even in the Christian/Secular sense. The listed rights seem to be only wishful thinking. If they were truly “rights”, they’d be harder to take away. I DO understand Value, though, and value all life however defined.
Oh, and I wouldn’t be too smug about being human and therefore being the only creature to be able to realize enlightenment. We are, after all, animals, and most of us don’t avail ourselves of this opportunity even when we have it. Not to mention the fact that there have been non-humans who have shown a remarkably enlightened attitude even to our sensibilities. To their own, who knows? Maybe their Buddha is out there even as we speak.
We shouldn’t be smug, but grateful. However, this is an ancient teaching of the historical Buddha. Enlightenment is possible only through birth in the human realm, which of course doesn’t mean everyone born into the human realm is enlightened. Exactly what that means is open to many interpretations, however.
It seems to me that the (secular, historical) Enlightenment notion of “human rights” assumes and depends upon the kind of separate, fixed, identifiable “person,” the belief in which — according to Buddha Dharma — is the very root of our samsaric bondage.
As Buddhist practitioners, we cultivate both relative and absolute Bodhicitta. Perhaps an aspect of relative Bodhicitta may be to relieve the relative suffering caused by the perception, within certain groups of humans, of an “infraction of human rights.”
But the work of absolute Bodhicitta is in seeing that enlightenment/liberation — viz. the release from samsaric suffering — requires dissolving this illusory notion of a separate “me” to whom such rights might adhere (or be taken away from).
Animals have no rights because according to Christianity, the almighty god, after creating the earth, pointed the finger at the animals and told the men : These are for food. Most people today still think so.
If we focus on human reality, then we observe that there are quite a few human beings who take advantage of the rights of other humans and animals. Only a few humans focus on the issue of human/animal rights. I did not read about the views of the Jainist. They have their own viewpoint about rights, do they not? And, in Southeast Asia, one does not expect vegan Buddhists, esp. in Thailand and surrounding countries. Why bother discussing what no one can agree upon? What we can agree upon is the human being is a fallible thinker.
Here is a good video on meat: http://meat.org
I believe Mark Twain had it exactly right when he wrote that, “Faith is believing in something you know ain’t true.”
After 71 years on this fast-fading planet, I remain convinced that organized religions have done far more harm to the planet and its myriad life forms than all other causes combined: wars, starvation, pestilence, you name it.
We’re presently losing an estimated 30,000 plant and animal species every year, all due to human impacts. Human over-population is perhaps the most serious problem facing the planet, yet hardly anyone will address this issue.
But, hey! All this will be moot if scientist James Lovelock is right (the Gaia Hypothesis). He opines that global warming is irreversible and that by the end of this century (90 years), there’ll be five BILLION people dead of flooding, starvation, wars and disease, with the few humans left living a hand-to-mouth existence north of the Arctic Circle, on a planet nearly devoid of flora and fauna. I can hardly wait.
We may be clever, but we certainly aren’t smart. No other animal degrades its own nest to the point of self-destruction. Or makes unending war upon its own.
And good riddance to us, I say. We long ago forfeited our “right” to be on Planet Earth, morally bankrupt species that we are. Here’s hoping the next evolutionary cycle doesn’t produce anything similar to us.
And surely there are more important issues to focus our efforts on right now than religious debates, no? The Gulf of Mexico, for instance.
x
Eric Mills, coordinator
ACTION FOR ANIMALS
Oakland
Buddhism is not about “believing” anything. You might have tried to learn something about it before making a fool of yourself with irrelevant comments.
Which means you can’t learn anything. As we say in Zen, empty your cup.
Sorry about the flip response, but exceptionalism always annoys me. And, yes, I’m aware of the teachings on enlightenment, but I prefer to think of it as, “If you have the capacity to achieve enlightenment for yourself, you’re human” rather than that being the sole perview of H. Sapiens. If a baboon were to show this capacity, I’d cheerfully designate it as “human”.
Joe, it’s not necessarily about species. There are many ways to interpret “born into the human realm,” including psychologically.
I know your school doesn’t deal with the Diamond Sutra, but it’s one of my favorites. The Diamond Sutra says,
So, where’s your exceptionalism?
The one advantage of human birth is the possibility of realizing enlightenment, and thus human life is treated with special care.
My favorite quote of this ilk is short and sweet:
“This is my constant thought:
How can I cause all living things
To gain entry to the highest way
And quickly attain Buddhahood?”
Not so much a prediction as a call to action.
Joe — you’re forgetting shunyata, or maybe it’s not emphasized where you come from. “Human birth” or “animal birth” or “deva birth” or “preta birth” are temporary conditions, not identities. You are thinking of them as intrinsic identities.
Nope, natta. Nichiren followed T’ien T’ai’s observation that the realms are life conditions rather than actual birth realities. I was mainly objecting to the shallower interpretation of the above quote, rather than the deeper reality. Right Speech, after all, requires that we keep the audience in mind.
And I was also writing from the reality that Buddhist ethicists, from the beginning, do give human life a higher priority than non-human life. That’s a fact. When facing a choice between saving a baby and a guppy, you save the baby. And I have to explain things from the perspective of the majority of schools, not from any one school.
If someone say “the concept of rights didn’t exist in 25 centuries back”, it means simply the limited knowledge of the person in the relevant discipline, especially when discussing about Buddhist Philosophy.
Siri Wickramasinghe
I disagree. “Rights” is merely a way of conceptualizing the value of being human, a way that is not entirely compatible with the doctrine of anatta. That doesn’t make rights “bad,” but it’s not necessary to conceptualize human (or animal) value in terms of “rights” in order to manifest compassion.
I think that rights are legally applied to people or animals. Since animals have feelings and are capable of suffering, our laws should protect them from being abused. I think it is ok to raise them for dairy as long as they are taken care of well, and not killed. The modern factory farm is a horror of great magnitude, and I think these animals must be protected.
1: OK, let`s assume for the moment we are all human (lol), if that`s so what makes us different from say an animal, simple, all of a sudden we die & a few seconds latter karmic imprints from our mind changes it into a dogs mind, which is what it is to be a dog as opposed to human, so we now no longer see a pen as a pen but as a chew toy ( the emptiness of the pen yes ). Same with an other being in any other realm (buddhism has ALWAYS taken the 6 realms as REAL places). So of course all beings have equal right to hppiness, human rebirth is considered more precious ONLY because it offers the best opportunity for Enlightenment & maybe Buddhahood.
Mangalam.