Animal Killing Animals are generally regarded as the objects of a crime, which is less serious when they are intentionally killed. The Patimokkha (Code of Discipline of the Buddhist Order of Monks) imposes an offense called pacittiya on a Bhikkhu who intentionally kills an animal. An offense of this type requires that the Bhikkhu guilty of the killing confess his guilt to another Bhikkhu together with a promise to be more heedful. In Pali this is called desanagamini. With respect to the law of the country, the killing animals is wrong only when the animal killed does not belong to the killer or when it is some species protected by the government. From the moral or karmic point of view, the inner results affecting a person’s character cannot be offset by such formalities or standards of the law. As a rule, such crimes are to be judged by object, volition (or motive) and effort. Of all the animals, those that have owners are the objects of a more serious crime than those, which are ownerless. In the former case it is obvious that the killer has committed not just one crime, but two: the actual killing itself which is against the first precept, and an offense against a person’s property which is correlated with an act of stealing, an offense against the second precept. The killing of useful animals, such as work animals and beasts of burden (horses, oxen, buffalo, etc.) is a greater crime since such an act means the destruction of their usefulness with the destruction of their lives. Size is also another factor entering into judgment. Killing the same kind of animal can result in different degrees of evil since it can imply differing amounts of benefit lost there from. Killing one’s own animals however does not transgress the second precept, but the other factors should be judged on the same basis as mentioned above. As for ownerless animals, killing a harmless creature is a greater evil than if a dangerous one is killed, and one of a larger bulk is again the object of a greater wrong. On the basis of volition or purpose, killing without a sufficient cause is an act entailing a serious offense. By a sufficient cause is meant, for example, self defense, a scientific or medical experiment, a way of earning a livelihood, to kill for food, or to kill to relieve an animal of acute or prolonged suffering before death. The essence of the matter is whether or not the killing is done with a purpose overpowered by a strong evil desire. Thus killing for the sake of earning a living may in some cases not be regarded as a sufficient cause. When the person, in spite of the fact that he is able to earn his living by some other means, still prefers doing so in this reprehensible fashion because of strong greed. On the third basis, effort, the act of killing will be a serious, middling, or minor offense according to whether a great deal of effort, a moderate amount of effort, or a little effort is involved. One that is preceded by torture and that affects animals indiscriminately and on a great scale is really very serious. Poisoning fish in a pond may be cited as an example of this kind of brutal killing. In absolute terms and from the moral point of view, the act of killing is always wrong as it is against the first precept. From the karmic standpoint, however, there can be a great difference in both the degree and the amount of evil committed when the three bases of judgment - object, motive, and effort - are taken into account, both individually and collectively.
Posted on: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 07:47:43 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015