Is animal euthenasia 'humane'?

Buddhist ethical conduct including the Five Precepts (Pañcasikkhāpada), and Eightfold Ethical Conduct (Aṭṭhasīla).
LXNDR
Posts: 697
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 5:15 am

Re: Is animal euthenasia 'humane'?

Post by LXNDR »

seeker242 wrote:
Thanks. :smile: I think I understand that part. But my point was really that if a person does honestly believe that soon to be over equals over, and some other person knows it's not, doesn't that imply that these two people, if they do the same action, will be making different kamma? Doesn't one's perception influence what kind of kamma is made? For example, a little kid squashing some bugs for fun vs us squashing some bugs. It seems to me that we would be making worse kamma than the little kid because we are fully aware of that being's sentience and the kid is not. In other words, we have a different perception of the situation and that has an influence on the making of kamma.
why do you think awareness of a wrongdoing is an aggravating factor for the resulting kamma?

derivative of this question would be a question of whether the act of breaking the precept against killing in this case will produce bad kamma on top of the one produced by the very act of killing
SarathW wrote:Person who make a kamma knowing is greater than the person who is doing unknown.
In this case, the thought killing is Ok is a wrong view.
Hence he is doing a greater unwholesome kamma than a person doing without the wrong view.

http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... WRONG+VIEW" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
so it appears exactly the opposite to the principles of a mundane system of justice

it doesn't clearly follow from the sutta, but i'd assume that this only pertains to noble disciples and the tenet of sotapanna's security from rebirth in bad destinations kind of supports this conclusion

SarathW
Posts: 14129
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Is animal euthenasia 'humane'?

Post by SarathW »

Hi Lxander.
There is a Sutta to support my statement.
It says a person who hold a hot iron with the right knowledge will not burn his hand.
But a fool may not know how to handle a hot iron and may get burn his hand.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 3633
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Is animal euthenasia 'humane'?

Post by Mr Man »

SarathW wrote:Hi Lxander.
There is a Sutta to support my statement.
It says a person who hold a hot iron with the right knowledge will not burn his hand.
But a fool may not know how to handle a hot iron and may get burn his hand.
I don't think your statement
SarathW wrote:Person who make a kamma knowing is greater than the person who is doing unknown.
Would be true in all circumstances.

SarathW
Posts: 14129
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Is animal euthenasia 'humane'?

Post by SarathW »

It is just the common sense.
A person have knowledge make better decisions.
:)
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 3633
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Is animal euthenasia 'humane'?

Post by Mr Man »

SarathW wrote:It is just the common sense.
A person have knowledge make better decisions.
:)
Yes. so they do not perform the unskilful actions. They pick up the hot iron in the right way. I imagine if you were to kill a mouse the negative result would be greater than the man from rentokill.

SarathW
Posts: 14129
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Is animal euthenasia 'humane'?

Post by SarathW »

Mr Man wrote:
SarathW wrote:It is just the common sense.
A person have knowledge make better decisions.
:)
Yes. so they do not perform the unskilful actions. They pick up the hot iron in the right way. I imagine if you were to kill a mouse the negative result would be greater than the man from rentokill.
No what I meant was I find the ways not kill the mouse.
I had a mouse in my house.
I used my vacuum cleaner to catch him and release to the wild.
:sage:
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”

LXNDR
Posts: 697
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 5:15 am

Re: Is animal euthenasia 'humane'?

Post by LXNDR »

SarathW wrote: I had a mouse in my house.
I used my vacuum cleaner to catch him and release to the wild.
:sage:
sorry about digressing, but can you share the method? i know a more simple one not involving appliances

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 3633
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Is animal euthenasia 'humane'?

Post by Mr Man »

SarathW wrote:
Mr Man wrote:
SarathW wrote:It is just the common sense.
A person have knowledge make better decisions.
:)
Yes. so they do not perform the unskilful actions. They pick up the hot iron in the right way. I imagine if you were to kill a mouse the negative result would be greater than the man from rentokill.
No what I meant was I find the ways not kill the mouse.
I had a mouse in my house.
I used my vacuum cleaner to catch him and release to the wild.
:sage:
So then you do not perform the unskilful action. You perform a different action. I took "Person who make a kamma knowing is greater than the person who is doing unknown." To mean if the same action was committed.

SarathW
Posts: 14129
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Is animal euthenasia 'humane'?

Post by SarathW »

What I am saying is a person with the knowledge do a good or bad kamma more skilful way.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 3633
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Is animal euthenasia 'humane'?

Post by Mr Man »

SarathW wrote:What I am saying is a person with the knowledge do a good or bad kamma more skilful way.
Thanks for clarifying. :)

User avatar
seeker242
Posts: 1023
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:01 am

Re: Is animal euthenasia 'humane'?

Post by seeker242 »

LXNDR wrote:
why do you think awareness of a wrongdoing is an aggravating factor for the resulting kamma?
It just seems to me that if you know something is wrong, but do it anyway, that would be worse than doing it when you think you are only just helping. There are different intentions. One is to help and the other is to hurt.

In my experience working with veterinarians, I honestly didn't see anything wrong with what they were doing. The reason why is because what would the animal choose if it could choose? What would I or you prefer if we were in the animals position? Of course all beings would want to continue living but you can't choose to continue living because that's not an option anymore. Your body is too badly damaged to continue living past tomorrow morning. Assuming that there is a 100% chance that you will be dead by tomorrow morning. Now, you're given two options. Option #1 is to just die. Option #2 is to be tortured and experience tremendous pain for the next 20 hours, and then die. Those are the only two options in this situation. Who in their right mind would choose option #2? I can't imagine any being wanting to choose option #2, especially so when there is nothing at all to be gained from experiencing that extra 20 hours of torturous pain. The veterinarians do not perceive themselves to be "killing an animal". In their mind, what they are doing is saving the animal from 20 hours of unnecessary torturous pain. One could say in a manner of speaking, that if you force the animal to choose option 2 you are, in effect, torturing the animal.

LXNDR
Posts: 697
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 5:15 am

Re: Is animal euthenasia 'humane'?

Post by LXNDR »

seeker242 wrote: In my experience working with veterinarians, I honestly didn't see anything wrong with what they were doing. The reason why is because what would the animal choose if it could choose? What would I or you prefer if we were in the animals position? Of course all beings would want to continue living but you can't choose to continue living because that's not an option anymore. Your body is too badly damaged to continue living past tomorrow morning. Assuming that there is a 100% chance that you will be dead by tomorrow morning. Now, you're given two options. Option #1 is to just die. Option #2 is to be tortured and experience tremendous pain for the next 20 hours, and then die. Those are the only two options in this situation. Who in their right mind would choose option #2? I can't imagine any being wanting to choose option #2, especially so when there is nothing at all to be gained from experiencing that extra 20 hours of torturous pain. The veterinarians do not perceive themselves to be "killing an animal". In their mind, what they are doing is saving the animal from 20 hours of unnecessary torturous pain. One could say in a manner of speaking, that if you force the animal to choose option 2 you are, in effect, torturing the animal.
as the Biblical saying goes " [Am] I my brother's keeper?"

i don't think anyone is put here to make existential decisions on someone else's behalf, therefore finishing off an agonizing living being is in effect interference with its kamma
and the emotional suffering one experiences at the sight of an agonizing living being and due to one's own helplessness is one's own kamma to be lived through

putting out a hopeless living being could be a copout from the problems its misery creates and troubles causes, which is not a very wholesome motive

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Is animal euthenasia 'humane'?

Post by tiltbillings »

seeker242 wrote:
LXNDR wrote:
why do you think awareness of a wrongdoing is an aggravating factor for the resulting kamma?
It just seems to me that if you know something is wrong, but do it anyway, that would be worse than doing it when you think you are only just helping. There are different intentions. One is to help and the other is to hurt.

In my experience working with veterinarians, I honestly didn't see anything wrong with what they were doing. The reason why is because what would the animal choose if it could choose? What would I or you prefer if we were in the animals position? Of course all beings would want to continue living but you can't choose to continue living because that's not an option anymore. Your body is too badly damaged to continue living past tomorrow morning. Assuming that there is a 100% chance that you will be dead by tomorrow morning. Now, you're given two options. Option #1 is to just die. Option #2 is to be tortured and experience tremendous pain for the next 20 hours, and then die. Those are the only two options in this situation. Who in their right mind would choose option #2? I can't imagine any being wanting to choose option #2, especially so when there is nothing at all to be gained from experiencing that extra 20 hours of torturous pain. The veterinarians do not perceive themselves to be "killing an animal". In their mind, what they are doing is saving the animal from 20 hours of unnecessary torturous pain. One could say in a manner of speaking, that if you force the animal to choose option 2 you are, in effect, torturing the animal.
Interesting, options are that one, based upon a rigid doctrinal interpretation, opts not to euthanize the animal for fear of generating negative kammic results, because one has an aversion to the idea of one's own suffering, one lets the animal suffer needlessly, or one acts compassionately and brings the animal's life and suffering to a quick end. Basically, we get to choose our form of acting with aversion. If euthanizing an animal that is in intractable pain, whose life is no longer sustainable, is aversion, so is refusing to act for fear that one might suffer as a result of one's choice. Personally, I would opt for the action shaped by compassion.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Is animal euthenasia 'humane'?

Post by tiltbillings »

LXNDR wrote:
seeker242 wrote: In my experience working with veterinarians, I honestly didn't see anything wrong with what they were doing. The reason why is because what would the animal choose if it could choose? What would I or you prefer if we were in the animals position? Of course all beings would want to continue living but you can't choose to continue living because that's not an option anymore. Your body is too badly damaged to continue living past tomorrow morning. Assuming that there is a 100% chance that you will be dead by tomorrow morning. Now, you're given two options. Option #1 is to just die. Option #2 is to be tortured and experience tremendous pain for the next 20 hours, and then die. Those are the only two options in this situation. Who in their right mind would choose option #2? I can't imagine any being wanting to choose option #2, especially so when there is nothing at all to be gained from experiencing that extra 20 hours of torturous pain. The veterinarians do not perceive themselves to be "killing an animal". In their mind, what they are doing is saving the animal from 20 hours of unnecessary torturous pain. One could say in a manner of speaking, that if you force the animal to choose option 2 you are, in effect, torturing the animal.
as the Biblical saying goes " [Am] I my brother's keeper?"
Spoken by Cain who had just killed his brother in a fit of anger. So, what does this text have to do with anything?
i don't think anyone is put here to make existential decisions on someone else's behalf, therefore finishing off an agonizing living being is in effect interference with its kamma
Then no need to ever render assistance to an accident victim, or to anyone in dire straights, for it is their kamma that this happened to them. No need to render assistance to another country that is being invaded by a hostile country, for it is their collective kamma that they be defeated and subsumed by the aggressor.
and the emotional suffering one experiences at the sight of an agonizing living being and due to one's own helplessness is one's own kamma to be lived through
Says who? You know what is caused by kamma and what is not?
putting out a hopeless living being could be a copout from the problems its misery creates and troubles causes, which is not a very wholesome motive
There may be an aversion in not wanting to see the animal suffering, but there can also be considerable compassion, mitigating the aversion, coloring it, and shaping it. Since there is no choice but to act this way or that, I would prefer to act with compassion.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

LXNDR
Posts: 697
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 5:15 am

Re: Is animal euthenasia 'humane'?

Post by LXNDR »

tiltbillings wrote:
LXNDR wrote:
i don't think anyone is put here to make existential decisions on someone else's behalf, therefore finishing off an agonizing living being is in effect interference with its kamma
Then no need to ever render assistance to an accident victim, or to anyone in dire straights, for it is their kamma that this happened to them. No need to render assistance to another country that is being invaded by a hostile country, for it is their collective kamma that they be defeated and subsumed by the aggressor.
if we speak from the dhammic perspective, everything you enumerated doesn't necessarily require violation of precepts

but if it does, then there's a place for careful judgement
tiltbillings wrote:
LXNDR wrote: and the emotional suffering one experiences at the sight of an agonizing living being and due to one's own helplessness is one's own kamma to be lived through
Says who? You know what is caused by kamma and what is not?
it's me who says that, and since neither me nor you know for sure, why tamper with it, especially that it's against the precepts ?
tiltbillings wrote:
LXNDR wrote: putting out a hopeless living being could be a copout from the problems its misery creates and troubles causes, which is not a very wholesome motive
There may be an aversion in not wanting to see the animal suffering, but there can also be considerable compassion, mitigating the aversion, coloring it, and shaping it. Since there is no choice but to act this way or that, I would prefer to act with compassion.
if there's compassion, then it's an ignorant, a defiled one, since again it's not in line with the Dhamma

tiltbillings wrote:
LXNDR wrote:
i don't think anyone is put here to make existential decisions on someone else's behalf, therefore finishing off an agonizing living being is in effect interference with its kamma
Then no need to ever render assistance to an accident victim
only when one is in critical fatal condition to not unnecessarily prolong his/er suffering

does your advocacy of compassionate killing apply to cases of agonizing humans?
Last edited by LXNDR on Fri Jun 26, 2015 2:54 pm, edited 6 times in total.

Locked