Post 5 - Jainism

Jain ethics is at once both simple and very complex. Jain ethics come down to one simple idea of non-violence or Ahisma.  A Jain’s greatest concern is for the well-being of everything in the universe and for the very essence of the universe itself. Jain’s believe that everything has a soul and no soul is more important than another and this simple idea impacts what they eat, their career and their politics. Because of the belief in non-violence Jain’s are strict vegetarians and also do not wear any cloth that may have harmed an animal or human in production.  In this spirit of non-violence, some Jain holy men will sweep the street in front of them as to not step on any bug. This is an admirable commitment to the universe, but for Jain’s this extends even further.  Jain’s also must not work in a career field that is harmful to others or to the environment, which include logging, anything to do with meat, eggs or honey, weapons and circuses or zoos.  Ahisma places a lot of restraints on Jain followers in what they can eat, wear and do but it is all in the spirit of preserving the souls, resources and well-being of the universe.

The neuro-ethical argument postulated by Lane for vegetarianism focuses not on the idea of the soul but from a purely materialistic approach to ethics. Lane focuses on the idea that animals have a central nervous system and feel pain, much like humans feel pain. Lane argues that we don’t eat humans because we empathize with them and despite being similar to use we don’t empathize with most of the animal kingdom.  He uses the example that we wouldn’t eat dolphins or apes because they appear to have intelligence and thusly we empathize with them, but we don’t empathize with cows or other meat animals despite having higher brain functions as well.   Lane’s argument for vegetarianism is that it is a choice; we do not need to eat animals to survive. While eating animals may have been necessary for survival in the past, it today’s era with all the soy, TVP, vegetables and other food sources available to eat there is no reason to eat meat.  This is what makes vegetarianism an ethical choice according to Lane and despite the fact I am not a vegetarian, I would agree with him. Since eating meat is a choice and choosing to eat animals causes significant harm and pain to the animals being eaten thusly we should not be eating animals.

From my understanding, Lane’s argument for vegetarianism is similar in some ways to the Jain perspective. Jain’s do not want to cause harm to anything living so they are vegetarian. The difference in the reasoning for vegetarianism is that Jain’s do not want to harm animals because they have a soul just like we do while Lane focuses on the materialistic aspect of the central nervous system and the pain it causes to living beings.  Jain’s believe harming other souls harms our own while Lane simply believes it is morally wrong to cause harm to another living being; very similar with the exception of the metaphysical aspect.  I think Jain’s would agree that it is immoral to eat another living being without cause but I do not think a Jain would agree with the materialistic approach since they believe in souls.

The article on vegetarianism did make me think differently about the topic, I have heard many reasons for vegetarianism from the soul argument to the fact some people just don’t like the taste of meat. It was interesting to read a point of view that simply frames meat eating as a choice that causes undue harm to other living beings. All animals have a nervous system and can feel pain. Just because it is culturally ingrained in us to only eat certain animals does not give us a right. It’s difficult for me to say that despite all this I will continue to eat meat, but it is true. I understand the argument but I don’t want to make the choice of becoming a vegetarian. Despite this, I feel that there are a large number of reforms that can be made to reduce the suffering of animals we eat and measure we can make to reduce our overall consumption of meat.