Re: animal liberation and Marxism

[boddhisatva <kbevans@xxxxxxxxx>]

                Jeff,


        I think you are looking for an "either, or" where there isn't one.
The goal of any human system of thought is to conceive a way for man to be
compassionately prosperous.


        Many buddhists rank life - human to Yew tree to prion- on a sort of
scale of sentience.  The question becomes: How much is that thing sentient as
I am?  The goal is then to be most compassionate to the most sentience in the
world.  We see the result in that when we compare our reaction to a boats
deck full of fish and a dead dog.  We are usually more troubled by the dog,
even though there so many more fish have died.  Dogs "think" more than fish,
so we identify with them more, so we are more compassionate towards them.


        On the other hand the leaves falling off a favorite tree may make us
sad and a big plate of shrimp may make us happy.  Shrimp "think" more than
trees, but a plate of shrimp keeps man prosperous, and thus takes care of
sentient being number 1 (or 2).  By the same token, a beautiful tree
satisfies the aesthetic sense, which we recognize as tied to our
compassion, so we weep for the pile of unthinking wood.

        
        This philosophy, like Marxism, puts the compassionate human (or
the godly archetype of human compassion) at the center of the universe.
Thus it seems chauvinistic.  However, if human compassion is the ideal
aesthetic, and the *compassionate* man the ideal ruler of the world, then
to serve that compassion and the vessel of it is a universally
encompassing good.  Thus man has pets, but slaughters livestock. He
becomes a vegetarian but destroys wild habitat for farmland.  And, though
it may stress the earth, he looks for the greatest prosperity for the
greatest number, trusting that their prosperity will give them the freedom
to realize the greatest compassion.



        peace


                boddhisatva






     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------