Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Cow protection hindu practices
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Hindus believe that the cow is a sacred beast and that it must be
preserved. This is because its is deemed holy. One of these reasons is
that Krishna, one of the Gods had gopis, and the idea of Krishna being
associated with cows is very strong. The manu-smriti shows that the
cow must not be killed under any circumstances. This is because the
duty of ahimsa applies to: ‘A teacher, a profounder of the scriptures,
father, other, guru, Brahmin, cow and ascetic: they should never be
killed.’ (Manu-smriti 4.162.) Ahimsa includes regarding the cow as a
sacred animal and the killing of it as a form of murder.
Another reason as to the ‘significance of cow protection’ in Hinduism
is that the cow sustains and nurtures life in the village. The cow’s
milk is extremely useful in all countries (Even the rich). Its dung
provides fuel, heat, and light. Even the cow’s urine is extremely
important as it has certain medicinal properties that can help many
aspects of one’s health.
The most sacred animal to Hindus is the cow; one of the reasons is
because the bull is a vahana (vehicle) for one of the three most
important deities, Shiva. Due to the cow’s significance in Hinduism,
they were once sacrificed at temples in the Vedic period. Today Cows
should be protected and given sacredness, because they have a strong
connection wit the Gods. The Bulls are essential in the villages of
India to pull carts and ploughs to ensure the smooth day-to-day
running of the village.
As stated above Krishna had a strong connection with cows, in stories
he is was known to milk them and to play with them. This importance of
cows has such an impact on the lives of Hindus living in India,
because they are deeply revered and killing them or harming them is
forbidden. In India, the right of way is given to them on the streets.
In addition, for elderly cows retirement homes or gowshalas have been
set up for mainly old cows and other animals.
"The Case For Animal Rights" written by Tom Regan, promotes the equal treatment of humans and non-humans. I agree with Regan's view, as he suggests that humans and animals alike, share the experience of life, and thus share equal, inherent value.
Mad cow disease is caused by prions, "weird mutant proteins that are found in brain and spinal tissue"1. Another name for mad cow disease is called bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and the definition is "a progressive neurological disorder of cattle that results from infection by an unusual transmissible agent called a prion"2. It started from what is called a prion protein then it turned into a pathogenic, and then it starts to damaged the brain of a cattle. There's another name for this disease and it's called Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease "a form of progressive dementia characterized by loss of nerve cells and degeneration of nerve cell membranes leading to the production of small holes in the brain. It is rare, degenerative, and invariably fatal"3. This disease happen in human causing lapses in the memory, mood swings similar to depression, lack of interest and social withdrawal3. It is said that this disease has no tr...
Christopher McCandless, a young American who was found dead in summer of 1992 in wild land in Alaska, wrote in his diary about his moral struggle regarding killing a moose for survival. According to Jon Krakauer’s Into the Wild, Chris had to abandon most of the meat since he lacked the knowledge of how to dismantle and preserve it (166-168). Not only did he have a moral dilemma to kill a moose, but also had a deep regret that a life he had taken was wasted because of his own fault. He then started recognizing what he ate as a precious gift from the nature and called it “Holy Food” (Krakauer 168). Exploring relationships between human beings and other animals arouses many difficult questions: Which animals are humans allowed to eat and which ones are not? To which extent can humans govern other animals? For what purposes and on which principles can we kill other animals? Above all, what does it mean for humans to eat other animals? The answer may lie in its context. Since meat-eating has been included and remained in almost every food culture in the world throughout history and is more likely to increase in the future due to the mass production of meat, there is a very small chance for vegetarianism to become a mainstream food choice and it will remain that way.
“The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality."( Schopenhauer). Vegetarianism and animal rights movement have been crossing each other since 70’s. The meeting point between two is veganism which means strict vegetarianism. Vegetarianism was firstly founded as being formed on ethical issues and then it became mostly based on health reasons. Even though vegetarianism has evolved drastically over time, some of its current forms have come back full circle to its early days, when vegetarianism was an ethical-philosophical choice, not a mere health choice.
In his essay “Religion and Animal Rights," the writer Tom Regan maintains the place that animals are "subjects-of-a-life”, like humans. If we value all beings regardless of the degree of human rationality that are able to act, we must also attribute to animals or as it is called non-human animals as well. All practices involving abuse of animals should be abolished. The animals have an intrinsic value as humans, and stresses that Christian theology has brought unbridled land on the brink of an ecological catastrophe.
Vivisections, medical research that harms the research subject without providing any benefits to them, is supported by philosophy professor R.G Frey on the basis that the using and killing of animals is morally permissible because humans' quality of life exceeds animals' quality of life. Frey does not disregard the fact that vivisections harm animals, he sees no difference in the pain felt by humans and animals; nonetheless, Frey does not believe that all members of the moral community have lives of equal value. He believes that sacrificing the lives of those with less value is better than sacrificing the lives of those with higher values. Therefore, Frey defends the act of vivisections on the basis that humans' lives are of greater moral value
Vegetarianism, or at least the idea of it, which includes everything from Lacto-ovo-vegetarian to veganism, has existed for quite a long time. There is record of people abstaining from eating meat and flesh well before the Christian Era, and although not as widely practiced it might have been easier to follow such a diet in that time in history. Veganism is the most strict and extreme version of vegetarianism; it was defined in 1944 and very similar to the way people of ancient times practiced it, but with more restrictions due to more food options and more emphasis on ethical concerns. If one was to examine veganism today they would see an extremely disputed practice in terms of what is acceptable to consume according to ethics, health ideas, and the different levels of veganism. The opposition comes from less strict vegetarians and non-vegetarians, it’s the idea that veganism is not the healthier diet to practice, but that a balanced, well rounded diet might actually be more beneficial to one’s health and longevity. More importantly the ethical claim made by people who practice vegan diets isn’t as ethically sound as it’s made out to be. This research paper will examine the different types of vegetarians, specifically people who classify themselves as vegans and raw vegans, the ideas and ethics behind their lifestyle and why they fall short of what they claim, and reasons why practicing this diet may not be the better choice.
The Seven Commandments are the basic principles of animalism worked out by the pigs and described originally as "unalterable laws" by which the animals were to live. The Seven Commandments were written on the barn wall for all animals to see and read if they could. The original Commandments are:
Throughout history, societies have been faced with many social issues affecting their citizens. Martin Luther King Jr, a civil rights leader for African Americans, was an advocate for the Civil Rights Movement, a movement that fought to undo the injustices African Americans endure by American society in the 1960s. Martin expressed his disgust with the social inequality among citizens when saying “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” (PETA). Taking the prominent leader’s words into consideration, we should progress as a society by participating in the animal rights movement that strives to extend the same compassion, felt by Martin Luther King Jr, to all living things (PETA). Popular criticisms report that animals are inferior to humans because they are a source of food, but I will argue that they are victims of social injustice. Validity for my animal rights argument will come from individual and organizational expert accounts and by Bioethicist Peter Singer, Author Francis Fukuyama, New York Time’s Mark Bittman and also Animal Rights organizations, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), and Animal Equality, to help prove my argument. Animals are silent victims who are loudly crying out for someone to stand up for their rights; rights that can no longer be disregarded by being overlooked. It is my belief that animals should be respected, and afforded ethical and human treatment by society instead of being looked at as a source of food. In a society where animals have no voice, it is everyone’s civic duty to participate in the animal rights movement and acknowledge animals as living beings, which...
Is it possible to be an ethical meat-eater? Well, in my opinion, it is not ethical. There are many animals that suffer in the process of being slaughtered. Federal law requires mammals be stunned prior to slaughter. Typically, electric current is used to induce a heart attack or seizure. Then a captive bolt gun is used to deliver a blow to the skull or to shoot a rod into the animal’s brain. Eating meat is not ethical; animals suffer, they are tortured, because there are not enough Federal regulations protecting the animals, and there are environmental issues, as well as the health issues concerning the consumption of meat.
Should animals be harmed to benefit mankind? This pressing question has been around for at least the past two centuries. During the early nineteenth century, animal experiments emerged as an important method of science and, in fact, marked the birth of experimental physiology and neuroscience as we currently know it. There were, however, guidelines that existed even back then which restricted the conditions of experimentation. These early rules protected the animals, in the sense that all procedures performed were done so with as little pain as possible and solely to investigate new truths. Adopting the animals? perspectives, they would probably not agree that these types of regulations were much protection, considering the unwanted pain that they felt first followed by what would ultimately be their death. But, this is exactly the ethical issue at hand. For the most part, animal rights are debated in regards to two issues: 1) whether animals have the ability to rationalize or go through a logical thought process and 2) whether or not animals are able to experience pain. However, ?it will not do simply to cite differences between humans and animals in order to provide a rational basis for excluding animals from the scope of our moral deliberations? (Rollin 7). This, Bernard Rollin claims, would be silly. He says that to do this is comparable to a person with a full head of hair excluding all bald men from his moral deliberations simply because they are bald. The true ethical question involved is, ?do these differences serve to justify a moral difference?? (Rollin 7). Also, which differences between humans and non-humans are significant enough to be considered in determining the non-human?s fate?
If a plant based diet has all the nutrients an omnivore diet has, why are we still eating meat? Many say that it’s easy to be deficient in certain vitamins and minerals, but a well-planned vegetarian diet can provide all the nutrients and more. Vegetarianism not only is beneficial to your health, but to the environment too.
The benefits to maintaining a vegetarian diet are myriad and increasingly well-defined by modern science; these benefits include decreased risk of heart disease and certain cancers. Many vegetarians claim to feel better and more perceptive, and two of the top three sprinters in the world are vegan. Vegetarians often claim moral superiority over non-vegetarians through varieties of a “hurt no living thing” credo. Nevertheless, only 2.8% of American adults are vegetarian. The advantages to vegetarianism are well-known, and the disadvantages seem negligible, yet in most countries only a tiny portion of the populace are vegetarian or vegan; Why would anyone ignore the option to live longer and feel superior, both physically and ethically?
The media is full of stories about people and their addictions; drug addictions, alcohol addictions, shopping addictions, the list goes on and on! But, the one dependency that the media and general population continue to overlook is the addiction to meat. Many people love meat and eat it every day! The thought of not eating meat is absolutely devastating to them; they can’t imagine living like that! But by reducing your intake of meat, you are not only benefiting yourself, you are benefiting your environment!
According to the Human Research Council, the percentage of the United States population surveyed in 2014 that claimed to be vegan or vegetarian was 1.8% (“Reasons for Choosing Vegetarianism or Veganism,” 2016). Vegans are individuals who do not eat any animals products including meat and dairy products, whereas vegetarians are individuals who do not eat meat products. Vegetarians, as well as vegans, are considered minorities in society because they choose to eat a certain way and stray from social norms. They are made fun of and are constantly harassed by sensitive meat eaters and people who think it is “weird.” Vegetarians are thought to be crazy for not wanting to eat meat. This evolving era of vegetarianism is an ethical issue because majority