The first of the five ethical precepts is against killing, not causing harm.[james] wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2020 9:12 pmIt seems reasonable that, as an animal capable of speaking for yourself, you would have something to say against the possibility of your own body or those of others close to you being killed and eaten. It is plain to see that all animals try to avoid a similar fate. So although you don’t think that you speak for animals the fact is that you can speak for them should you choose to do so. Given that the first of the five principal precepts guiding the ethical behavior of lay Buddhists is to avoid causing harm to others, why would a self described Buddhist choose not to speak out against the harm to animals that underlies the consumption of meat?Sam Vara wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2020 7:00 pm
Sure. As I say, as an ethical position it is tenable. It's not one I would subscribe to myself, on the grounds I don't think I speak for animals.
It is certainly the case that one might have good grounds for being Buddhist and vegetarian, though it is not the case that those grounds are dictated by, or are an inescapable part of, one's Buddhist beliefs.
Speaking out against killing animals is praised by the Buddha in the canon, and Buddhists who choose to do so are doing something beneficial. My point is that there is no canonical reason for considering this to be compulsory.