Argument: But the animals get slaughtered anyway.
Counterargument: Sure, the animals who lay in the freezer in the grocery store are dead, but as everybody knows the demand for something regulates the supply. If nobody would buy meat, no animals would have to be slaughtered to fill up the freezer.
Argument: For certain occasions it is just tradition to eat meat.
Counterargument: A lot of families in Europe eat for Christmas a goose or for New Year's Eve a carp or trout. Or in the USA every Thanksgiving thousand of turkeys get eaten. But still in the beginning of this century it was there "tradition" too that women had no right to vote and even the slavery is not too long ago. In Europe they did cut out the tongues from liars and in the middle of the 18th century a lot of red-haired women were accused to be witches and therefore burned. Some years ago it was still legal in Spain to throw one time a year for a religious ceremony a goat out of a church tower! It is forbidden today, but in some areas still practiced. Want somebody seriously claim that these traditions are worth it to keep? So why not renounce the goose or the turkey?
Argument: But animals eat other animals too!
Counterargument: So you want to compare yourself with predacious animals like lions and tigers? "Unfortunately" our ancestors are the anthropoid apes that are mostly plain plant eater what means vegetarians. We have neither the tooth nor the claws to tear an animal into pieces. No, more the opposite because our teeth are for the grind of wheat and other plants really predestined.
It is scientifically proved that the length of the intestines is decisive for the digestion. Our relatively long intestines of plant eaters are as unfit for the digestion of fast rot meat as the short intestines of tigers for the digestion of a grain bar. Another fact is that animals hunt their animals by themselves. Would you still eat cows if you would have to see in their eyes and then stab the cow with a knife and listen to the death screams while the blood squirt out of the sore?
Besides that it makes us wonder that exactly the people for who the humans are on a higher level than the animals compare themselves with predacious animals and therefore go down to the same level again. If the humans are different from animals due to the intelligence (?), why should not he realize that meat is not necessary for the daily life and abandon it? Every human is a free personality that can think and act independently upon a certain age. Eating meat just because some animals do is not a good example for the cultural and social development of the humans. On the one hand some people try to justify their meat diet with being more progressive, developed etc., but on the other hand they want refering to the animal world, because they do it the same way. Some animals wallow in the mud or others eat worms. Just because they do, we do not have to do it too!
Furthermore do not eat all animals other animals. The dominating part consists of herbivores, that means they are living vegetarian. And even carnivores only eat herbivores anew, without them they could not even exist. The other way around it would be possible.
We want to add that carnivores have no other opportunity than eating meat. First, because their environment may not supply enough plants and second, because their digestive system is not made for it and they could not digest the nutrients of the plants. If people say the human is an omnivore that might be true. He can eat everything, but he does not have to. Humans developed in a way that does not need animal ingredients. More to that in the next counterargument.
Argument: Humans always ate meat!
Counterargument: Like already disapproved above our ancestors are the (mostly) vegetarian anthropoid apes. Most people talk about the time when the humans hunted mammoths. But such an animal got caught only once in a while and a hunt could take up to some month. Besides was it sometimes, especially in the winter and some regions just not possible to find always plants. That is also one of the reasons for the low life expectation of 20 to 25 years. Do you call that desirable? Today the technique and science is so far that we have again the possibility to live without meat. The evolution does not stop and who wants to develop backwards and hunt again with a bearskin?
It was an invention of humans to catch animals, to tame and domesticate them, to breed them, so that there is always plenty of meat available. But it was also an invention to build hothouses in which plants can grow every time of the year. Or the grow of more productive types of grain and the invention of the "three fields economy" (Dreifelderwirtschaft) and later the mechanical cultivation helped to get higher returns from the same field. Like we have learned to digest meat and to make it eatable we have learned to produce vegetable food in a way that they are everywhere in the world available and consists enough nutrients. Stop eating meat and change to pure vegetable food would not be a retrogression, on the contrary it would be a part of the culturell development of the humans. Humans passed laws for the protection of animals that say that it is illegal to superfluously maltreat an animal. If we are capable of living vegetarian, is not the killing of an animal superfluously maltreatment? By the way, the "Animal Welfare Act" of the United States Department of Agriculture, passed by the US Congress "specifically excludes animals raised for food or fiber." That means it is a protection against our vegetarian counterargument that it would be illegal to maltreat animals. They just said, if you kill an "animal for food or fiber" it is not illegal to maltreat them. But if you beat your pet? Where is the justice?
Argument: I do not kill the animals by myself!
Counterargument: Ordered murder is just as bad. If oyu pay a person money to kill a human the person will be persecuted as the murderer him- or herself. So why this should not be applicable for animals? The point is: If a meat eater excuses his or her eating habits with the argument that he/her did not kill the animal itself and this could it the animal, the argument cannot be accepted. It is not about who killed the animal but that the animal was killed in the first place. Another counterquestion would be: Could you kill the animals yourself? Meaning not the skills but the crossing of a moral line. Anybody that could not kill a sweet little rabbit this confesses indirectly that there must be something wrong morally. Plus to be honest: Anybody that would not have a problem with that seems suspect to us.
With your purchase of meat you kind of give the order to kill another animals to fill up the shelves again.
Argument: But have not the vegetarians a lack of nutrients?
Counterargument: How many nutrients can you name that are contained in meat? Surely not many for there are not many. The muscle meat of animals for slaughter contains an average of 3-30% fat, 21% protein, 1% mineral salts (e.g. table salt, calcium, phosphoric acid), 0,5% carbohydrates and 70-75% water, and vitamins. The fat, the protein and the carbohydrates can be substituted without problems with vegetable food. Pork meat e.g. contains only traces of carbohydrates, but rice almost 75% and potatoes 20%. Besides that are animal fats contrary to vegetable fat highly concentrated. That is why meat eating people often get too much protein that strains among others the pancreas. The pancreas is responsible of producing the enzyme for the protein digestion and counteracts the beginning of cancer. A lot of protein is contained in all kinds of nuts, grain and soybean flour. Fat is available in vegetable oil (for instance margarine).Mineral nutrients are contained sufficiently in vegetable food too. Calcium is available in tofu four times more than in cow milk and can also be found in nuts or dried fruits. Vitamin A, B1, B2, C, E and K are contained in fruits and vegetables (spinach, carrots), sometimes also in grain more than sufficient. Our body can produce vitamin D itself under the influence of sunlight, but is also available in enriched foods like margarine. The supply with vitamin B12 could cause some troubles. But the body only needs very few amounts of it and is capable of storing it for a long period of time. Bacteria in the small intestine can produce it too. The natural source are microorganisms, though they get killed by the chemical agriculture. That is why fruits and vegetables coming from organic farming should be preferred.
Even a lack of iodine does not have to be feared in this times due to the increasing use of salt containing iodine. An example shall summarize it all: Compared with 100 gram of pork meat soybean flour contains 25 gram more carbohydrates (pork meat has only traces), the same amount of fat, twice as much protein, a bit more calories, five times more mineral nutrients, 15 milligram more vitamin A (pork meat has only traces), a bit more vitamin B1 and twice as much vitamin B2.
Besides prove the millions of living vegetarians the opposite every day and it is scientifically proved that they have a longer life expectation. Also consider that with the feed of wheat and grain to livestock about 90% of protein, almost all carbohydrates and all fiber are wasted.
Argument: You got to eat meat to stay healthy (...or to become big and strong)
Counterargument: It is surprising how many times this argument appears, because due to many studies it should be already established that meat is because of the high percentage of fat in it is one of the main reasons for heart attacks, high blood pressure and weight problems. Every cancer institutions will approve that vegetarians have a much lower rate of cancer. Considering that 55% of all medications sold in the USA are used for livestock you should start thinking. Besides it is proves now that some people are already immune against some medications, in which are substances that are given to animals to keep them calm before the slaughter.
Argument: The animals get killed fast and without pain.
Counterargument: Then why must so many cows be brought with electric shocks to the slaughter if the procedure is painless? DO you seriously believe that the animals do not feel pain when they got killed? How do you explain then their screams? Is that supposed to be a "Hallelujah"? And even is the slaughter procedure would be relatively short what is not always the case, after this follows the death. If you could choose between a short and painless death and life, what would you choose?
Argument: Cows are just raised to be slaughtered!
Counterargument: In the earlier days people bought slaves just to let them work. Is that an argument? In some countries in Asia they raise dogs and cats and in Europe sometimes horse to be slaughtered. Would you eat dogs, cats or horses? In some religions is the cow holy, so they do not eat cows.
Argument: If we would not eat cows and pigs, they would become too many.
Counterargument: As dumb as this argument sounds, some people still argue with that. They seem to forget that, if nobody would eat animals, we would not have to raise them anymore.
Argument: But the vegetarians kill the poor innocent plants!
Counterargument: This argument mostly is brought up when the person does not know what to say anymore and tries to attack the vegetarians verbally. Nobody really believes that plants feel pain what is scientifically proved too, because they do not have nerve cells that could transmit the pain. Who makes fun about vegetarians with "Save the soy beans!" or "Save the baby peas!" seems to forget that they have to eat fruits and vegetables daily also! Nobody can survive without vegetables, fruits and grain, but everybody can live without meat.
Argument: I just like the taste of meat.
Counterargument: There are many vegetarian products, which taste due to good seasoning exactly like meat. So who wants to feel sometimes the taste of a hot dog, can do that vegetarian too. With tofu hot dogs you do not even have to cancel your barbecue.
Argument: Vegetarian products are way too expensive!
Counterargument: Sometimes this might be true, but one of the reasons is that there are still not enough vegetarians. Due to the law of demand and supply the prices would decrease if more people become vegetarians, because then they can produce in bigger amounts. In contrast to this meat is only this cheap because of the animal factories and the automatically appearing cruelty. So called bio-meat from farmers with small farms is much more expensive.
Argument: But fishes are no real animals.
Counterargument: No? So what are they? In which category would you put them: humans, animals or plants?
Argument: Fishes do not feel pain.
Counterargument: Only because fishes cannot scream that does not mean that they cannot feel pain. They have nerve cells like any other animal too. Besides get a lot of dolphins, whales, turtles, see birds and so on killed while catching fishes with big nets. And 50% of the eels from fish farms die before the slaughter. For every eel bought, two had to die!
Argument: Don't you kill spiders and insects in your room?
Counterargument: There are two possibilities. Either you really try not to kill insects and other small animals. Then the answer to the argument is fairly easy. Surely it can happen sometimes, but then it was not intended and therefore somehow excusable. That happens to others as well. If I kill animals in self-defense it is justified for me too, because I appreciate my own life without any egoism more than that of an animal. Sometimes there is the version of the argument: "If you had the choice between saving a human or an animal, what would you choose?" Here I say "the human" without much thinking, because "members of the same species" to use the biological words help each other more than other species. This is just logical, but is used against me by meat-eaters, because I hold the opinion that humans and animals are on the same level.
Another way for people who are afraid of spiders and thus kill them is this: Nobody can be 100% perfect, not even you. If you have the choice between killing all spiders and pigs, cows, fishes and so on or ONLY kill spiders, so the killing of only spiders isn't "as bad" as the other choice, is it? Only because you cannot do everything the right way that does not mean you can change at least a little bit. It is better to be a vegetarian and spider killer than a meat eater and spider killer. When people tell you "You kill spiders, you can eat meat then as well..." you can say: "But you eat cow meat, so you can eat horse meat or dog eat too..." Some people then say that they really would do that but there have to come other counteragruments to work. Besides, it is in general only said as a act of defiance.
Argument: Isn't it enough for a compromise to eat less meat?
Counterargument: Not for the animals that get killed nevertheless. It is clear that a change of diet cannot happen overnight. But who cannot justify the killing of innocent animals won't be satisfied with reducing his or her share of meat.
Argument: If you don't eat meat, you take destroy the jobs of farmers, butchers etc.!
Counterargument: Not all farmers sell exclusively meat and meat products. They can change their farms after a while without problems to vegetable productions. Furthermore the jobs won't be destroyed, they just get shifted. People do not starve, they only eat something different. With this line of argumentation you could justify wars as well so soldiers and weapon producers have something to work. "But they kill people..." Butcher kill animals... and so on.
The Buddhist Diet: A Moral Call to Strict Vegetarianism
Every year, 25 billion animals are slaughtered for food in the United States (Go Veg, par.1). Plates are killing grounds where forks and knives are weapons of death. Cooked dead animals cut into slabs that are often still bloody are main dinner courses for many people all across the United States. This massive meat consumption relies on factory farming techniques that maximize production but also maximize animal suffering. Basically, consumption of steak (dead cow), pork (dead pig) and other animal products cause unnecessary suffering to sentient beings. Based on Buddhist principles of nonviolence, a Buddhist diet should reveal compassion toward animals to prevent suffering. To prevent the most suffering, a Buddhist diet should be strict vegetarian, meaning little or no consumption of any animal products including meat and/or dairy. First this essay will explain and refute three arguments against vegetarianism. Then, the essay will explain how Buddhist mindfulness trainings, the non-harming principle and jātaka tales clearly point toward vegetarianism.
The argument for vegetarianism is often rejected by those who grew up consuming animal products or by those who have a monetary interest in society’s animal consumption, such as meat and dairy farmers. Main arguments against vegetarianism include claims that meat-eating and dairy consumption is natural, that non-human animals do not feel pain and that a vegetarian diet is unhealthy. All three of these claims can be easily refuted.
First, meat consumption is not natural. Scientific studies reveal that humans are not natural meat-eaters. The anatomy of humans, especially the composition of salivary glands and stomach acids, largely points to the fact that the human body was designed to eat plants and not meat. Also, other studies reveal that dairy products, specifically milk and cheese, are not only unnatural but also unhealthy. For example, dairy products contain no fiber or complex carbohydrates and are loaded with saturated fat and cholesterol. Additionally, a Harvard study backed by 75,000 nurses suggests that consumption of cow’s milk actually causes osteoporosis (Milk Sucks, par. 7).
The second argument against vegetarianism, that non-human animals do not feel pain, is also easily refuted. There are several factors that lead one to believe that non-human animals do in fact feel pain. Peter Singer, animal rights activist and author of Animal Liberation, writes, “Nearly all the external signs which lead us to infer pain in other humans can be seen in other species . . .” He continues, “behavioral signs – writhing, facial contortions, moaning, yelping or other forms of calling, attempts to avoid the source of pain, appearance of fear at the prospect of its repetition, and so on - are present” (11). Scientific studies also reveal that animals are sentient beings, like humans, and can feel pain. Plants, a necessary part of every human’s diet, are non-sentient beings and therefore do not suffer when killed. As Singer states, “There is no reliable evidence that plants are capable of feeling pleasure or pain” (248). As the first and fifth mindfulness trainings point out, it is desirable to avoid the causation of suffering. Therefore, the killing of any sentient being should be avoided.
Last, those against vegetarianism often claim that a strict vegetarian diet is unhealthy. This, too, is untrue. Strict vegetarian diets are actually quite healthy. According to Dr. T. Colin Cambell, a researcher at Cornell University, “The vast majority, perhaps 80 percent to 90 percent, of all cancers, cardiovascular diseases, and other forms of degenerative illness can be prevented, at least until very old age, simply by adopting a plant-based diet.” (Vegetarianism, par.2). Another concern about vegetarian diets is whether or not one can get proper nutrients, specifically protein. Scientific studies, such as those printed in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition conducted by Harding and Stare and in Diet for a New America by John Robbins, state that varied vegetarian diets contain sufficient protein and are healthy. (qtd. in Vegetarianism, par.2).
Now that the above claims against vegetarianism have been refuted, the essay will focus on how Buddhism calls for strict vegetarianism. One can see principles of vegetarianism in Buddhist mindfulness trainings, in the non-harming principle and in jātaka tales.
The first mindfulness training, as explained by Vietnamese Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh, states,
Aware of the suffering caused by the destruction of life, I am committed to cultivating compassion and learning ways to protect the lives of people, animals, plants, and minerals. I am determined not to kill, not to let others kill, and not to support any act of killing in the world, in my thinking, and in my way of life (94).
This training for mindfulness clearly reveals that one should avoid causing unnecessary suffering. Similarly, and more specifically addressing diet, the fifth mindfulness training states,
Aware of the suffering caused by unmindful consumption, I am committed to cultivating good health, both physical and mental, for my self, my family and my society by practicing mindful eating, drinking and consuming. . . . I understand that a proper diet is crucial for self-transformation and for the transformation of society (96).
One can see that a proper diet is “crucial” to avoiding unnecessary suffering. This diet is undoubtedly strict vegetarianism. Although the trainings also mention non-sentient beings such as plants and minerals, a human diet without plants is not possible. Therefore, killing of plants is necessary. The issue of a Buddhist diet is about how one can avoid unnecessary suffering. Killing of non-human animals is unnecessary and should be therefore avoided by Buddhists who wish to follow mindfulness trainings.
Buddhism also encourages vegetarianism in the principle of non-harming (avhimsa or ahimsa). “To live in the realm of non-harming is to love,” states Thich Nhat Hanh. “Non-harming is an important practice” (79). By abstaining from the practice of eating meat and dairy, one is abstaining from harming sentient beings and therefore reducing suffering. Life for animals even before they are slaughtered is often full of suffering. On factory farms, animals are crammed into the small cages and are forced to live in their own excrement. Some believe that conditions for animals on farms should be improved but that it is still acceptable to eat them. That is similar to saying that if one treats you well for a period of time, then he/she should have the right to kill you. Clearly, proper treatment of animals is good but does not justify their killing. The practice of vegetarianism allows animals to live without forced suffering. To live out the Buddhist principle of non-harming, one should adopt a strict vegetarian diet.
Last, many Buddhist jātaka tales present anthropomorphic views of animals and reveal principles of vegetarianism. For example, in a tale called “The Banyan Deer,” a deer converts a king, who is a steadfast hunter, to the belief that all sentient beings should be free from being hunted. After admitting that all sentient beings should be free from being hunted, the king lives happily ever after caring compassionately for all living things. Tales such as this one tell that Buddhists who respect sentient life will gain peace and understanding. They reveal that all life is interconnected and that the suffering of humans is linked to the suffering of all non-human animals. Buddhist jātaka tales seem to directly point to the importance of a vegetarian diet.
As the above paragraphs show, one who follows Buddhist principles should adopt a strict vegetarian diet. One can see that humans are not natural meat-eaters, that animals are sentient and therefore feel pleasure and pain, and that a vegetarian diet is healthy. Further, Buddhism promotes vegetarianism in mindfulness trainings, through the non-harming principle and in jātaka tales. As His Holiness the XIV Dalai Lama stated, “I do not see any reason why animals should be slaughtered to serve as human diet when there are so many substitutes.” (qtd. in Famous, par. 5). Clearly, a true Buddhist diet is one that is compassionate and reduces suffering. This diet is undoubtedly strict vegetarian.