Taoism: Compassion, moderation, and humility
.png)
We civilized humans are obsessed with doing. The tendency to constantly be doing and changing the things around us is so habitual, ways of doing which ultimately harm a cause create a better impression on us simply for the reason something is being done.
Taoism (pronounced "dow-izm") teaches of a philosophy called Wei Wu Wei meaning "doing without doing." This philosophy is exemplified in the verses of the Tao Te Ching ("Dow-day-jing") here translated by Stephen Mitchell:
...the Master
acts without doing anything
and teaches without saying anything.
Things arise and she lets them come;
things disappear and she lets them go.
She has but doesn't possess,
acts but doesn't expect.
When her work is done, she forgets it.
That is why it lasts forever. (2)
Wei Wu Wei is not meant to be an all-encompassing philosophy for life. Taoism does not suggest we live a life of inaction. Rather, "not doing" embraces the multitude of changes and cycles of nature which allow things to grow, be, and retreat. While we human beings are capable of so many great things, this overconfidence causes us to believe we must be influencing and controlling the world around us in order for it to work in harmony.
The inactivism of animal rights activism
The appeal of exploited animals raised "humanely"
Recalling an earlier statement, The tendency to constantly be doing and changing the things around us is so habitual, ways of doing which ultimately harm a cause create a better impression on us simply for the reason something is being done. For an example of this, look to the campaigns and Facebook protests which answer the desire to respond to injustice by signing a petition or forming a group. The participant is hardly interested in the entire course of the response, whether or not the petition will be noticed, let alone what the petition or group will actually do. He just wants to show himself in that cause. He wants to do.
Some of my readers may be saying to themselves "of course not all responses will work but at least something is being done. How would inaction be any better?" However, Wei Wu Wei does not mean "doing without responding." Of course, we should respond to injustice but we should be ready to turn down measures which will only create an illusion of progress or end up helping the very injustice to exist in the first place. In other words, there is a difference between a reaction and a response; A reaction is merely an act which happens out of the influence of the injustice. As a vehicle owner might kick his car when it breaks down, a reaction need not actually fix or seek to fix the problem. A response is just the opposite, a response is meant to come to a resolution regardless of how showy or pleasing the act of responding may be. Indeed, sometimes reactions do respond. Otherwise, reactions react.
Reacting vs. responding
"Free range eggs" chicks killed routinely for being male
To an animal rights advocate, welfarism is such a reaction. Here, I am referring to welfarism in terms of politics. Everyone is for the idea of welfarism at its very root. We tend to do things we like for ourselves and treat the ones we love with kind thoughts and actions. Welfarism allows us to exercise empathy in responding to the needs of ourselves and our loved ones in times of poor health, sadness, and the like. With this in mind, political welfarism, or animal welfarism, wouldn't look so bad.
Indeed, we should take care of animals and their being treated better is better than them being treated worse. Who could disagree with that? However, merely legislating and campaigning for the better treatment of animals who are slaves in this world (for food, labor, clothing, entertainment, chemicals...) has serious detrimental effects in the long term. Welfarism often rejects "doing without doing" techniques like abolitionism and veganism in place of regarding vegetarianism and/or supposed "conscientious" use of animals as a "gradual step in the right direction." While a movement to veganize culture and abolish the use of animals completely would gradually end the use of animals for any purpose, the mere regulation of animal use causes the public to feel better about killing and using animals which actually increases the rate of exploitation of animals.
For someone who cares deeply of the plight of animals, to vote or be against any measure which seeks to offer birds more space in their cages or space to roam would seem counterintuitive. However, this individual who truly cares for the plight of animals, who takes animal rights seriously would no doubt think through the implications of such reactions. An animal advocate should be critical of welfarism in the same way so many consumers were opposed to the antibacterial craze when antibacterial products were so good at killing bacteria, they drastically disrupted our body's ability to cleanse and strenghten our immunity in the absence of antibacterial products. The very act of doing inflated the original problem.
Improving cruelty (rather than ending it)
.jpg)
Click to view full pamphlet
So an animal advocate should say "if this would cause animals to have roomier cages, what else would it do? What difference would this really make?" They should also wonder if legislation really does do what it appears to do or if it's a manner of fancy wording. They should wonder what those resources could otherwise be doing and how a change would impact the public. Despite these warnings, consumers are now observing the failure of welfarism today. Movements originally meant to respond to the suffering of animals on farms are now being exploited to sell the parts of animals who are still slaughtered, genetically manipulated, and raised as property as "better" versions of cruelty.
So the essence of abolishing the use of animals through vegan education is doing without doing. Animals can earn their right to be free of unnecessary harm by...well, being left alone. A movement to better the life of a farm animal shows a very glossy surface of a dull coin. Why is the animal on the farm at all? How better could we treat an individual whose very existence is meant for death and exploitation? In light of a culture who has defied cultural norms, stereotypes, racism, and political ideas only in the past 200 years, animal rights advoacy holds the very pessimistic view that culture will no longer change, that the small percentage of vegans existing today will forever be a small percentage. This pessimism forms a self-fulfilling prophecy.
...We shape clay into a pot,but it is the emptiness insidethat holds whatever we want.....We work with being,but non-being is what we use. (11)
Comments
Wow. This article resonates with me on multiple levels. I am going to have to re-read this over the coming days. I love you bringing the Tao into this. Sometimes I struggle with trying to make sense of both the Eastern patterns of thought and the Western social justice ones I am following in tandem, but this is well-done.
Today, too, I have been focusing on "non-achievement" as taught by Shunryu Suzuki-roshi: "If your practice is good, you may become proud of it. What you do is good, but something more is added to it. Pride is extra. Right effort is to get rid of something extra."
Oh, I could go on! Perhaps I'll post an entry in my blog. Much thanks for this article. I will share it with others.
Namaste.
It is good to consider the consequences of one’s actions (or inaction) to maximize beneficial results and minimize negative consequences. If done right, legislation to ban battery cages has a number of undeniably beneficial results: 1.) it sends a message to elected representatives that animals matter. 2.) it sets a precedent that animals have certain rights (i.e. the right to move) that can be used to push for more rights for animals. 3.) it inhibits the ability of the animal exploiters to do business. 4.) it increases the expense per bird of the egg industry leading to fewer animals exploited. 5.) it educates the public about the plights of chickens and, often for the first time, gets people thinking seriously about animal rights. 6.) it leads many people to adopt a vegan lifestyle and philosophy. Weighing potential benefits vs harms, I am in favor of banning battery cages. To counter the potential harm, I have expanded my vegan outreach efforts.
Allen, you should read Gary Francione's Intro to Animal Rights. He would refute everything you just said.
1) It sends a message to everyone that IF animals matter, it's still okay to eat them. 2) The "right to move" is a pretty limited "right" if you ask me. 3) Actually, it promotes the ability of animal exploiters to do business. Such powerful industries aren't going to cave to a few AR activists without seeing the benefits to themselves. 4) People have lots of money and will just pay more to feel they're doing something for animals, while still eating them. The consumer-conscious of my friends always tell me they're buying cage-free eggs. 5) Does it? Give examples... I'm genuinely interested in hearing about this. But doesn't it also involve lots of AR activists wasting their time praising cage-free eggs? Perhaps that part is unnecessary. 6) That's a dubious claim, considering how many it could prevent from adopting veganism.
Everyone I know who's read Peter Singer refuses vega
Adam, I love this article, as I do all of your posts. I don't know if you can do anything about this, but this entry seems to be heavily sponsored by Walmart's Steak House, with pictures of steaks at 3 different points on the page. Very disturbing.... I realize there's something dynamic in the ad placements, as I'm also seeing an ad for Jon Corzine, NJ gov, and I live in NJ. It would be very cool if some sensitivity could be extended to the vegan entries and animal parts kept off these pages... just seems so incongruent...
Louche, I’ve read Francione and I disagree with much of what he has written. I find most of his claims to be unsupported, anecdotal and/or downright false. Supporting a ban on battery cages does not equal the promotion of cage free eggs any more than being against murder means you are in favor of rape. While big, powerful animal exploiters are not likely to cave to a few AR activists, they can be forced to cave to the will of the people in a democratic country, i.e. legislation. If the majority of people will vote to ban battery cages, but not eggs altogether yet, then at least we can ban battery cages. Later, with the help of vegan outreach efforts, we may be able to convince the majority of voters to ban eggs. It’s a process. If I had more than 1000 characters to comment, I might be able to devote more space to specific examples. I suggested you read Pattrice Jones and Martin Balluch.
I totally agree with Allen. What are you doing to animals that are already suffering in slaughterhouses by going against, for instance, a legislation that bans battery cages? I mean you can "do nothing" by saying nothing, but are against people who are fighting for better animal treatment.
Also, as Allen said, this DOES NOT mean I am for eating animals: I am vegan and I am against use of animal for any purpose.
For animals, I doesn't matter what you think but what you do.
(forgive my poor english. greetings from brazil)
Let me just clear up this one point: By "do nothing," I do not mean to say we should see animals suffering and simply do nothing about it. I explain this in detail in the article.
By do nothing, I mean that it is the absence of action (veganism) which will begin to grant rights to animals.
Allen
I don't know how a ban sends a message to an elected official but who cares if it does? An elected official can only bring more welfarism which has been shown to be a massive failure. Welfarism only makes the treatment of animals better in appearance. In reality, it strengthens the property status of animals and sends the message to the PUBLIC that the exploitation of animals is humane.
2. This does NOT set a precedent that animals have certain rights because it completely ignores their rights. Welfarism addresses privilege. By doing so, it says that animals have no rights to fair treatment other than that which does not interfere with our need to use them as property.
(Re: Allen, cont'd)
3. I absolutely disagree. Welfarism is fantastic for business. See certifiedhumane dot com, this is just one example of how organizations who claim to look out for the interests of animals also advertise to the animal industry they can help their business by opening the door to the "humane market." By making negligible, meaningless reforms, producers make the product more appealing. What does it matter that a bird has a larger cage if more of them are being killed and tortured as a consequence?
4. I absolutely disagree again! Reforms are often undertaken because they increase efficiency, such is the case with the CAK (controlled atmosphere killing) technique so lauded with PETA. These "welfarist" reforms allow a producer to kill more animals faster, cheaper.
5. Once again, the only education the public is receiving is that it is okay to use animals as our property. The public is being massively educated that killing an animal is ethical.
Allen, that's a poor example between murder and rape. Murder and rape are completely different things. It's like saying murder-free rape. Or cage-free rape. Cage-free sex slaves. Benevolent exploitation/killing. Did the human slavery abolitionists support benevolent slavery? No; they wanted total abolition. There were those who supported benevolent slavery, from the slaveholders themselves to those who caved to the slaveholders' powerful stance for the time-being... one wonders why we don't hear about them in the history books? Do you believe that somehow the issue of animal slavery is different, and if so, how?
And can you show me evidence that cage-free is in any significant way better than caged?
Adam,
You are saying:
"I will not ask them (government, farm owners, etc) to treat you (animals) better, because I am against you being there in the first place. I will not talk about torture or abuse, so you wait till everyone becomes vegan."
If you are in the dead row, do you prefer to live your remaining days miserably or be well treated and kill painlessly? People might be against death penalty, but it does mean they shouldn't ask for better treatment of those sentenced to death.
You, like Gary Francione, talk about Peta as if they ask people to eat "humanely raised" animals, or as if they promote welfarism. There is a huge gap between asking government better treatment to animals and asking people to eat humane raised animals. There is a good chance you can pass CAK as law but I am about to see a legislator forbidding meat.
You should use your energy to convince more people to go vegetarian instead of bashing other AR organization's actions.
Louche, you misunderstood Allen comparison among murder and rape.
He did not said there are "murder-free rape". He said that if you are against murder, it does not mean you are in favor of rape. In the same way, if you are against battery cages does not mean you promote cage free eggs.
Or, if I am in favor of condom, it does not mean I am against Catholicism. There are many other examples.
You can, at the same time, promote veganism and asks for better animal treatment.
I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth. Never did I say what you have in quotes. I also never said nothing would be done until everyone went vegan. I'm asking you to respond to your own confusion by educating yourself rather than setting up a straw man argument.
What makes you think "happy meat" animals are killed painlessly and do not suffer? This is the widespread ignorance from which the animal industry is succeeding over the concern of the public. You'll find these labels are largely meaningless and account for very small, negligible differences in the way animals are treated.
This also puts blinders on the issue. Of course it's better to be treated good than bad, but this negligible reform is being used to advertise exploitation to others. These reforms actually tell the public it's okay, ethical to exploit animals. Now that animal products are marked as humane, the property status of animals is as strong as ever.
visit abolitionistapproach.com
"You'll find these labels are largely meaningless and account for very small, negligible differences in the way animals are treated."
I disagree with that statement. Differences are being made and they are not meaningless. Abuser are being prosecuted and public are being informed of what is going on behind the wall. If you do not agree this is good for animals, then I am sorry.
I will end my discussion here, since we are never going to reach an agreement. I have already visited Francione's abolitionistapproach and the guys knows how to point finger at others and do nothing about the abuse of animals. One must be blind to not criticize his actions against others AR movements and call them good.
You are spreading anger inside the AR groups and I believe animals would not approve that.
Good night.
@Adam (and anyone else who is interested)
1. An elected official can pass any legislation that is constitutionally legal and that the people support. If enough people supported a ban on all animal products, then elected representatives could ban all animal products. Currently, only a small percentage of the population will support a complete ban on all animal products. Therefore our aim should be to educate our fellow citizens about vegan philosophy until enough people do support a complete ban. In the meantime, if enough people support a partial ban on animal production methods or support restrictions or tougher penalties for animal abusers, then why not support that type of legislation for now? We have to start somewhere.
2. Animals have a right to turn around and stretch their limbs. They have other rights too. But currently, the majority of the public does not yet recognize these other rights. The majority does, however, recognize that animals have the right to turn around and stretch. Legislation to guarantee that right sets a legal precedent upon which other rights may be fought for and won.
3. Agribusiness is going to promote their “products” as “humane” no matter what the AR community says or does. Battery cage “farmers” claim that chickens are better protected from the elements and predators, that they are easier to feed and treat for illness etc. We should expect that, but we shouldn’t blame the people who are fighting to restrict the free for all abuse that is so rampant in the industry right now.
4. I absolutely disagree again! Reforms are often undertaken because they increase efficiency, such is the case with the CAK (controlled atmosphere killing) technique so lauded with PETA. These "welfarist" reforms allow a producer to kill more animals faster, cheaper.
4. A CEO of a company cannot legally, knowingly make a decision that will decrease profits to his/her shareholders. Therefore, while it makes sense to ask the public to go vegan, it would be a complete waste of time to ask KFC to stop killing chickens. The company couldn’t stop killing chickens even if it wanted to because to do so right now would mean an intentional loss of shareholder profits. But KFC could require its suppliers to kill chickens in a way that is less painful, such as Controlled Atmosphere Killing because to do so wouldn’t mean losing profits. So while animal rights activists ask the public to go vegan, we ask the government to pass the strongest laws currently possible and we ask the KFC’s of the wor
5. The public already thinks that killing animals is ethical. That is the starting point. You can’t blame reformers for that. Of course some meat-eaters are going to try to come up with ways to justify continuing their behaviors. That is to be expected too. But most people consider themselves to be compassionate people. When educated about the horrors of factory farming, many people reduce their meat consumption. When educated again, they tend to go vegetarian. When educated again, they go vegan. It takes a lot of marketing saturation to convince someone to change their long held opinions and behaviors. Even the so called “rich” animal protection organizations don’t have even a fraction of the budget that a single fast food franchise has to advertise their point of view. For example, KFC’s annual advertising budget is more than 15 times PETA’s entire annual budget. While KFC commercials air on almost every commercial break, the AR orgs combined can only afford a small number of paid ad
I will refer you here: bit.ly/UA1mi
Of course, you ignore the forest for the trees. Oops! I forgot, it is "ethical" to eat trees. Although, the late Supreme Court Justice, William O. Douglas argued for legal standing for trees in court (Sierra Club vs. Mineral King). I haven't seen such a credible argument for animals other than humans. The ultimate fact you ignore at your peril is that rights entail corresponding responsibilities. That is where Justice Douglas' argument failed as well. You want so badly to protect individual animals, but avoid thinking about what would happen to whole species without the self-interested intervention of humans. Turn the mink loose from the farm and they only live free long enough to cushion the tires on the freeway. Is that your version of "compassion?" Humans are animals too. So sad you choose to enslave yourselves to urban life. Nature is beautiful, but often "cruel" as well. Death is a part of life none of us has yet found a way to avoid. Try as you might.
Tao gave them birth;
The power of Tao reared them,
Shaped them according to their kinds,
Perfected them, giving to each its strength.
Therefore of the ten thousand things there is not one that does not worship Tao and do homage to its power. Yet no mandate ever went forth that accorded to Tao the right to be worshipped, nor to its power the right to receive homage. It was always and of itself so.
Therefore as Tao bore them and the power of Tao reared them, made them grow, fostered them, harbored them, brewed for them, so you must
Rear them, but do not lay claim to them;
Control them, but never lean upon them,
Be their steward, but do not manage them.
This is called the Mysterious Power.
~ Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching
A horse or a cow has four feet. That is Nature. Put a halter around the horse's head and put a ring through the cow's nose, that is man.
Let man not destroy Nature. Let not cleverness destroy the destiny of the natural order."
~ Chuang Tzu
Buy captive animals and give them freedom.
How commendable is abstinence that dispenses with the butcher!
While walking be mindful of worms and ants.
Be cautious with fire and do not set mountain woods or forests ablaze.
Do not go into the mountain to catch birds in nets, nor to the water to poison fishes and minnows.
Do not butcher the ox that plows your field.
Taoism. Tract of the Quiet Way
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!