Working in the pet food industry

A place to discuss casual topics amongst spiritual friends.
no-xit
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 11:25 am
Location: Russia

Working in the pet food industry

Post by no-xit »

Hello everyone! I've got a question: if a person works as a merchandiser for a company producing pet food from meat, does he or she create bad kamma? What that person does is just makes sure that a certain kind of pet food is present on shelves of shops. What do you think?
Thank you very much.
User avatar
JeffR
Posts: 269
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 3:54 am
Location: Minnesota, Lakota Nation (Occupier)

Re: Working in the pet food industry

Post by JeffR »

I think: No.
Therein what are 'six (types of) disrespect'? One dwells without respect, without deference for the Teacher; one dwells without respect, without deference for the Teaching; one dwells without respect, without deference for the Order; one dwells without respect, without deference for the precepts; one dwells without respect, without deference for heedfulness; one dwells without respect, without deference for hospitality. These are six (types of) disrespect.
:Vibh 945
SarathW
Posts: 21184
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Working in the pet food industry

Post by SarathW »

According to Buddhist teaching it is not wrong livelihood.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
dhammacoustic
Posts: 953
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2014 4:30 am

Re: Working in the pet food industry

Post by dhammacoustic »

if a person works as a merchandiser for a company producing pet food from meat, does he or she create bad kamma?
I'm thinking you're asking this because kamma is intention so deep down, you know the answer ;)
User avatar
dhammacoustic
Posts: 953
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2014 4:30 am

Re: Working in the pet food industry

Post by dhammacoustic »

SarathW wrote:According to Buddhist teaching it is not wrong livelihood.
:|
AN 5.177, Vanijja Sutta wrote:"Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.

"These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not engage in."
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6590
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

Re: Working in the pet food industry

Post by Mkoll »

dhammacoustic wrote:
SarathW wrote:According to Buddhist teaching it is not wrong livelihood.
:|
AN 5.177, Vanijja Sutta wrote:"Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.

"These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not engage in."
Does the clerk or stocker at a supermarket engage in business in meat, intoxicants, and poison because customers buy meat, booze, and ant poison? Does a pharmaceutical company and all who work there do business in intoxicants and poison because some of their products can be used as such? Are doctors doing business in intoxicants when they prescribe narcotic painkillers that can be used as such? Does a company that sells cutlery for cooking do business in weapons because their products can be used as such? Is a person with an investment in a mutual fund which invests in any of those companies also doing business in what they sell?

The sutta doesn't have answers for more complex situations, so we have to use our best judgement.

~~~

no_xit,

Are you asking this personally? That is, you or someone you know have a job offer for such a company and are considering taking it?

Or is this a hypothetical question?
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
User avatar
dhammacoustic
Posts: 953
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2014 4:30 am

Re: Working in the pet food industry

Post by dhammacoustic »

Mkoll wrote:
dhammacoustic wrote:
SarathW wrote:According to Buddhist teaching it is not wrong livelihood.
:|
AN 5.177, Vanijja Sutta wrote:"Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.

"These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not engage in."
Does the clerk or stocker at a supermarket engage in business in meat, intoxicants, and poison because customers buy meat, booze, and ant poison? Does a pharmaceutical company and all who work there do business in intoxicants and poison because some of their products can be used as such? Are doctors doing business in intoxicants when they prescribe narcotic painkillers that can be used as such? Does a company that sells cutlery for cooking do business in weapons because their products can be used as such? Is a person with an investment in a mutual fund which invests in any of those companies also doing business in what they sell?

The sutta doesn't have answers for more complex situations, so we have to use our best judgement.
Hi Mkoll,

I have no idea why you typed all that, since my post was about;
if a person works as a merchandiser for a company producing pet food from meat
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6590
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

Re: Working in the pet food industry

Post by Mkoll »

dhammacoustic wrote:Hi Mkoll,

I have no idea why you typed all that, since my post was about;
if a person works as a merchandiser for a company producing pet food from meat
You quoted a sutta as though the answer to his question is self-evident from reading it. It is not. My response of rhetorical questions illustrating similarly complex situations makes that clear.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
User avatar
dhammacoustic
Posts: 953
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2014 4:30 am

Re: Working in the pet food industry

Post by dhammacoustic »

Mkoll wrote:
dhammacoustic wrote:Hi Mkoll,

I have no idea why you typed all that, since my post was about;
if a person works as a merchandiser for a company producing pet food from meat
You quoted a sutta as though the answer to his question is self-evident from reading it. It is not.
Are you saying that working as a "merchant" for a meat company, is not engaging in meat business?
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6590
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

Re: Working in the pet food industry

Post by Mkoll »

dhammacoustic wrote:Are you saying that working as a "merchant" for a meat company, is not engaging in meat business?
I'm not sure because his description of the job of merchandiser, not "merchant," is somewhat vague: "What that person does is just makes sure that a certain kind of pet food is present on shelves of shops." Is this person actually trying to expand the company's market by looking for new customers or just maintaining the stocks at existing shops? If they're selling, are they getting paid a commission for each sale or only a flat salary? Do they have money invested in the business? Are they high level management, low level worker, or something in between? What is the full job description?

I would need more details before coming to a conclusion.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6590
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

Re: Working in the pet food industry

Post by Mkoll »

dhammacoustic wrote:
What that person does is just makes sure that a certain kind of pet food is present on shelves of shops.
Sounds like a decent contribution to me.
So by your measure, does a stocker at a supermarket engage in wrong livelihood because he stocks meat products? How about the UPS delivery guy who delivers Amazon packages that sometimes have meat products in them? How far does your "decent contribution" go? And by the way, those aren't rhetorical questions—I'm actually curious about how you'll respond.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
User avatar
dhammacoustic
Posts: 953
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2014 4:30 am

Re: Working in the pet food industry

Post by dhammacoustic »

Mkoll wrote:So by your measure, does a stocker at a supermarket engage in wrong livelihood because he stocks meat products?
"stocks meat products"

Does it even sound right?

If it does, then I believe this is a reflection of our societal norms/assumptions of what is acceptable. But do these assumptions provide us with the ability to understand the actual nature of what is being done? Surely not.
How about the UPS delivery guy who delivers Amazon packages that sometimes have meat products in them?
He probably doesn't know what is in the package.
How far does your "decent contribution" go?
That depends. What exactly gives us the right to brutally slaughter animals, and stock up body parts?

It goes all the way.

Making sure that canned meats are present on the shelves, nicely organized, because it is part of the job. Sure, it sounds innocent enough, I sense a 'purity' in it.

Anyways, what is your definition of "right livelihood"?
User avatar
ryanM
Posts: 355
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 10:13 pm

Re: Working in the pet food industry

Post by ryanM »

dhammacoustic wrote: Are you saying that working as a "merchant" for a meat company, is not engaging in meat business?
Here's Bhikkhu Pesala on the topic. From the great vegetarian debate thread... http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=16659

Hopefully this will help clarify right livelihood.
sabbe dhammā nālaṃ abhinivesāya

"nothing whatsoever should be clung to"
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6590
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

Re: Working in the pet food industry

Post by Mkoll »

Dhammacoustic, my definition of right livelihood is in line with the suttas. However, the suttas fail to account for anything other than the most straightforward scenarios. So we have to apply our best judgement to specific complex situations as they come up.

My opinions are in agreement with Bhikkhu Pesala's words in the thread ryanM linked, with a selection of them copied below.

~~~
ryanM wrote:
dhammacoustic wrote: Are you saying that working as a "merchant" for a meat company, is not engaging in meat business?
Here's Bhikkhu Pesala on the topic. From the great vegetarian debate thread... http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=16659

Hopefully this will help clarify right livelihood.
Thanks ryanM. Here are some selections from Ven. Pesala's words:
Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:Maṃsavaṇijjāti sūkaramigādayo posetvā tesaṃ vikkayo.
Trading in meat means, having raised pigs or deer, etc., he sells them.

In my opinion this would include any kind of living-being sold for its meat or hide, but not if sold for other purposes, e.g. oxen for pulling carts, horses for riding, or dogs for pets or work.

Working in a shop or supermarket that sells meat is not included. Why? Because the staff are not selling the meat, they are only filling shelves, or working on the checkout. The supermarket owners or shop-keepers are the ones who are buying the meat for resale. Likewise, if one is asked to work on the wine counter, and is serving customers who ask for wine, spirits, or beer, then one is not "trading in intoxicants."

However, if one is working on a commission, or if one owns a corner shop that sells intoxicants or meat, then one is trading in and profiting from the sale of intoxicants or meat.

I think what Goenka says is right. The farmer who raises the livestock, the slaughterman who kills it, and the trader who purchases the animal products are all profiting from trade in meat (maṃsavaṇijjā).

However, it goes too far to say that checkout staff, or stockroom and delivery staff are trading in meat (or intoxicants).

[...]

If you work for McDonalds you are not trading in flesh, you are serving customers. The owners are the one's who profit from trading in flesh. It would be the same if you worked in a small Fish and Chip shop, cooking or serving the customers. However, if you owned and ran the business yourself it would be a wrong livelihood.

[...]

Trading in intoxicants or weapons is a different case. You don't have to manufacture them, if you just trade in them, then its a wrong livelihood. However, the shop-worker is paid to serve customers, so unless they are working on a commission or urging customers to purchase alcohol or weapons, their intention is pure as the example of the hunter's wife shows. They are fulfilling their duty to their employer. A Buddhist should dutifully help his/her employer or husband/wife/parents, unless told to do something immoral such as killing, stealing, lying, etc. He or she can obey an instruction or request, “Please bring my gun, I am going hunting,” but not, “Kill that duck that I caught in the trap.”

The bottom line is that each individual has to decide for himself or herself what they feel is right, after consulting the various texts and asking about the meaning.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: Working in the pet food industry

Post by Ben »

Yes, I agree.
The Buddha lived at a time when people selling meat were involved in slaughter. The Buddha didn't live in a modern society with people working as checkout attendants at bottle shops and supermarkets. Furthermore, Dhammacoustic seems to be making the same error of the Naganthas (Jains) who supposed that kamma was action rather than intention.
Kind regards,
Ben

Mkoll wrote:Dhammacoustic, my definition of right livelihood is in line with the suttas. However, the suttas fail to account for anything other than the most straightforward scenarios. So we have to apply our best judgement to specific complex situations as they come up.

My opinions are in agreement with Bhikkhu Pesala's words in the thread ryanM linked, with a selection of them copied below.

~~~
ryanM wrote:
dhammacoustic wrote: Are you saying that working as a "merchant" for a meat company, is not engaging in meat business?
Here's Bhikkhu Pesala on the topic. From the great vegetarian debate thread... http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=16659

Hopefully this will help clarify right livelihood.
Thanks ryanM. Here are some selections from Ven. Pesala's words:
Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:Maṃsavaṇijjāti sūkaramigādayo posetvā tesaṃ vikkayo.
Trading in meat means, having raised pigs or deer, etc., he sells them.

In my opinion this would include any kind of living-being sold for its meat or hide, but not if sold for other purposes, e.g. oxen for pulling carts, horses for riding, or dogs for pets or work.

Working in a shop or supermarket that sells meat is not included. Why? Because the staff are not selling the meat, they are only filling shelves, or working on the checkout. The supermarket owners or shop-keepers are the ones who are buying the meat for resale. Likewise, if one is asked to work on the wine counter, and is serving customers who ask for wine, spirits, or beer, then one is not "trading in intoxicants."

However, if one is working on a commission, or if one owns a corner shop that sells intoxicants or meat, then one is trading in and profiting from the sale of intoxicants or meat.

I think what Goenka says is right. The farmer who raises the livestock, the slaughterman who kills it, and the trader who purchases the animal products are all profiting from trade in meat (maṃsavaṇijjā).

However, it goes too far to say that checkout staff, or stockroom and delivery staff are trading in meat (or intoxicants).

[...]

If you work for McDonalds you are not trading in flesh, you are serving customers. The owners are the one's who profit from trading in flesh. It would be the same if you worked in a small Fish and Chip shop, cooking or serving the customers. However, if you owned and ran the business yourself it would be a wrong livelihood.

[...]

Trading in intoxicants or weapons is a different case. You don't have to manufacture them, if you just trade in them, then its a wrong livelihood. However, the shop-worker is paid to serve customers, so unless they are working on a commission or urging customers to purchase alcohol or weapons, their intention is pure as the example of the hunter's wife shows. They are fulfilling their duty to their employer. A Buddhist should dutifully help his/her employer or husband/wife/parents, unless told to do something immoral such as killing, stealing, lying, etc. He or she can obey an instruction or request, “Please bring my gun, I am going hunting,” but not, “Kill that duck that I caught in the trap.”

The bottom line is that each individual has to decide for himself or herself what they feel is right, after consulting the various texts and asking about the meaning.
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR

e: [email protected]..
Post Reply