JAINA Convention 1993 07 Pittusburgh

Author(s): Federation of JAINA
Publisher: USA Federation of JAINA

Page 17

-
15
Ahimsa (Noninjury)
Revisited!
encompassing ethical sensibility that we can best consider, rationally and sensitively, the rights and interests of the entire life community of the planet. This doctrine is the cornerstone of a just, humane and sustainable society. It is also enlightened self-interest, because when we harm others, including the environment, we inevitably harm ourselves.
by Dr. Michael W. Fox Vice President/Farm Animals
and Bioethics The Humane Society of the
United States 2100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20037
The ancient Sanskrit word ahimsa, meaning noninjury, is the doctrine of refraining from the harming of others. It is the central teaching of Jainism, Hinduism and Buddhism. As an ethical principle, we find it in the Judeo-Christian concept of the Golden Rule that holds that we should not do to others what we would not have them do to us. And it is implicit in the medical maxim "physician do no harm."
The doctrine of ahimsa is a call to ethical action. This active principle was termed satyagraha by Mahatma Gandhi -- the power of compassionate action.
Actions that entail the helping of life need to be as carefully considered as those actions that entail the deliberate, unavoidable taking or harming of life. This is because our most altruistic actions can have harmful consequences to others if we do not follow the absolute mandate of considering the doctrine of ahimsa (or the Golden Rule). Because of the many cruel paradoxes that we face today, situational ethics are such that while we cannot live by the Golden Rule as an absolute, we absolutely must consider the Golden Rule prior to deciding upon any action. We should be mindful of the differences between unavoidable, natural (perva
sive) suffering we see in nature and the often avoidable (human-caused) suffer- ing, over which we do have considerable control.
The doctrine of ahimsa encoinpasses both human and nonhuman (plant and animal) life. It also embraces nonliving entities such as lakes, swamps, and all natural ecosystems that can be harmed by various human activities that in turn may harm the animal and plant communities therein.
Some philosophers reason that since some animal species are more sensitive and intelligent than "lower" life forms, they have more "intrinsic" value. So they believe these animals (like elephants) should therefore receive more respect and protection because they have a higher degree of sentience than "lower" life forms (like worms and insects). I believe this line of thinking is anthropocentric and "speciesist." So-called "lower" life forms in healthy, natural ecosystems have great "extrinsic" value in their vital contribution to helping maintain the functional integrity of ecosystems -- the "balance of nature. For example, earth- worms are soil makers, and various insects pollinate plants. In spite of their relatively low degree of sentience, these and other "lowly" creatures play a far more significant role than most humans in their contribution to the well-being of the natural world.
This doctrine of noninjury does not limit respect and compassion to living entities based upon their degree of sentience, but also includes non-sentient living (eco) systems within the scope of moral consideration and empathic concern, critics might argue that because it is so all embracing: Thus, the doctrine of ahimsa is an impractical and unrealistic ideal. Yet by virtue of its illimitable scope, it takes us beyond the polemicizing dualities of animal versus human rights and human interests versus environmental protection and nature conservation. It is surely from such an all
This latter point leads us to a related principle of these Eastern religious teachings, namely, the law of karma. One's destiny is influenced by one's thoughts, words and actions. (What goes around, comes around.) The law of karma therefore recognizes that good will ultimately come to those who endeavor as best they can, to live according to the doctrine of ahimsa. But this is no easy task when we are born into a culture where social discord and violence are endemic and contagious; where cruelty toward animals is condoned and institutionalized; and where the destruction of the natural world is economically rationalized and industrially sanctioned.
It takes great courage, commitment, and vigilance to live in accord with the doctrine of ahimsa in a culture whose values are antithetical to this compassionate ethic of noninjury. Yet the more we can disengage our lives from those forces that are responsible for so much suffering and destruction in the world today, and still enjoy productive and meaningful lives, the more society will change and become more humane, socially just and environmentally sustainable.
For example, we can disengage, as consumers, from supporting cruel factory-farming systems by not purchasing various animal products from such
1. Paper given at the Jain Association in North America (JAINA) Convention, Pittsburgh, July 1993.
"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind."
-Mahatma Gandhi
Jaduateman
-
7TH BIENNIAL JAINA CONVENTION, JULY 1993
m
ary.org