Boyd 1

Julie Boyd

Factory farming: World religion and morality

Industrial livestock farming is among a large range of animal-welfare issues and concerns

that extends from trophy-hunting to whaling to product testing on animals to all aspects of more

obscure activities like the exotic-animal trade and the factory farming of bears in China for bile

which is believed to hold medical and aphrodisiac powers. Examining the various uses to which

animals are put, some are considered defensible, others abusive, and some unwarranted. A

certain moral relativism runs through the arguments of those who are hostile or indifferent to

animal welfare. In practice, this outlook leaves each individual to decide when and how animals

merit moral concern.

With the world wide $125 billion a year livestock industry, the human mind, especially

when there is money to be had, can manufacture grand excuses for the exploitation of other

human beings. Corporate farmers barely speak anymore of raising animals, with the small

amount of personal care this word implies. Animals are now grown like so many crops. Barns

have become confinements and the inhabitants are mere production units of a whole. The result

is a world in which billons of birds, cows, pigs, and other creatures are locked away, enduring

miseries they do not deserve, for the world’s convenience. Factory farming has no traditions, no

rules, no codes of honor, and no little decencies to spare for a fellow creature. The whole notion

is an abandonment of values and a betrayal of honorable animal husbandry.

Cruelty to animals is sometimes based on a Judeo-Christian outlook (also known as the

Abrahamic religions): Christians are taught that only humans have souls (i.e., only humans can

reason) and animals do not, so humans need not worry about their lives; they were made to serve

us, to be eaten, and to be used in experiments. This, however, is not a universal outlook. The

Boyd 2

Middle Eastern Morality (Eastern religions) looks at animals as having their own consciousness

and teaches respect for all forms of life. Not one individual who does not profit from the farms

can look at the modern factories or slaughter plants or agricultural laboratories and think, “Yes,

this must be humanity at its finest.” Least of all should society look for sanction in the Judeo-

Christian morality, whose whole logic is one of sociable disdain, the higher serving the lower

and the strong protecting the weak.

If one animal’s pain – say that of one’s pet – is real and deserving of sympathy, then the

pain of essentially identical animals is also meaningful, no matter what conventional distinctions

society has made to narrow the scope of sympathy. If it is morally and legally wrong to beat a

dog, or starve a horse, or grossly abuse farm animals, it is wrong for all people everywhere.

There is only one reason for condemning cruelty that does not beg the question of exactly why

cruelty is wrong, a vice, or bad for character: that the act of cruelty is a natural evil. Animals

cruelly dealt with are not just things, not just an irrelevant detail of moral drama. They matter in

their own right, as they matter to their Creator, and the wrongs of cruelty are wrongs done to

them.

This qualitative, textual analysis study examines Aristotle’s Golden Mean in accordance

with the ethical dilemma associated with animal cruelty and factory farming. Aristotle’s theory

of the Golden Mean strikes a moral balance between two extremes, one indicating success and

the other deficiency. As Aristotle stated, “virtue, then, is a mean relative to us, defined by reason

and as the reasonable man would define it. It is a mean between two vices – one of excess, the

other of deficiency.” As such, this textual analysis will acknowledge the Middle Eastern

Morality as success and the Judeo-Christian Morality as deficient in accordance with current

factory farming issues.

Boyd 3

Aristotle’s Golden Mean

Aristotle’s theory of the Golden Mean, a virtue-based ethics, strikes a moral balance

between two extremes, one indicating excess, the other deficiency (Pratt, 1993). The theory of

the Golden Mean is one of Aristotle's best-known pieces of ethical thinking; it can be found in

his book The Nicomachean Ethics. The Golden Mean does not reference a mathematical middle,

but the perfect intermediate point. Aristotle's ethics are strongly teleological and practical, which

means that it should be the action that leads to the realization of the good of the human being as

well as the whole.

The Golden Mean represents an accurate balance between extremes, such as vices. For

example, one extreme example relevant to the topic at hand is that of deficiency: for example,

the Judeo-Christian Morality (Abrahamic religions). Consequently, the other extreme of excess

would be the Middle Eastern Morality (Eastern religions). In accordance with the Judeo-

Christian Morality, a Christian would be an advocate for the sacrificing of animals for the greater

good of humanity, and a Middle Eastern religion would worship an animal as a blessing or gift to

them from God. This does not imply that the Golden Mean is the exact arithmetical middle

between extremes but that the middle depends on the situation. There is no universal middle that

would apply to every situation. Aristotle said, "It's easy to be angry, but to be angry at the right

time, for the right reason, at the right person, and in the right intensity must truly be brilliant."

Because of what the difficulty in certain situations can represent, constant moral improvement of

character is crucial (Barnes, 2001).

The importance of the Golden Mean is that it re-affirms the balance needed in life. Since

Aristotle was interested in the study of nature, he quickly realized the importance of balance in

nature and the tremendous effect it has on keeping up so many forms of life in nature going.

Since human beings are included in nature, which gives them life, it is reasonable to conclude

Boyd 4

that humans should also uphold the balance, just like nature. The problem is that the vast

majority of people are unwilling to admit that they are not at the top of nature, just a part of it.

The reason for this is the limits of human perception, which cannot grasp the complex ways that

nature operates, so they fear it because they do not fully understand it. This explains why people

of different religious beliefs, look to the idea of God who is primarily concerned with them in

relation to animal rights (Scully, 2002).

Despite the utility of such a theoretical framework, one practical problem with this theory

is the difficulty in identifying just what the extremes are; identifying a mean is contingent on

establishing the extremes of an action (Pratt, 1993). The key is to decipher which are at the polar

extremes.

The Judeo-Christian Morality

The Judeo-Christian Morality is an altruistic tradition. It is generally accepted that

people, regardless of their cultural and religious differences, should: love their neighbors as

themselves, treat others the way they want to be treated, and help their neighbors fulfill their well

being. The Judeo-Christian Morality comprises many individual religions, but mostly

encompasses the Abrahamic Religions: Christianity, Judaism, Islam and the Baha’i Faith.

The Judeo-Christian Morality is deontological in nature because of the unconditonality of

these injunctions (Pratt, 1993). In particular, the term refers to the common Old Testament/

Tanakh as a basis of both moral traditions, including particularly the Ten Commandments. It also

implies a common set of values present in the modern western world. The values most

commonly assigned to the Judeo-Christian tradition are liberty and equality based on Genesis,

where all humans are created equal, and Exodus, where the Israelites escape tyranny to freedom

(Scully, 2002).

Boyd 5

Supporters of the Judeo-Christian concept point to the Christian claim that Christianity is

the heir to Biblical Judaism, and that the whole logic of Christianity as a religion is that it exists

only as a religion built upon Judaism. In addition, although the order of the books in the

Christian Old Testament and the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) differ, the books are the same. The

majority of the Old Testament is, in fact, Jewish scripture, and it is used as moral and spiritual

teaching material throughout the Christian world. The prophets, patriarchs, and moral figures of

the Jewish scripture are also known in Christianity, which uses the Jewish text as the basis for its

understanding of historic Judeo-Christian figures such as Abraham, Elijah, and Moses. As a

result, a vast majority of Jewish and Christian teachings are based on a common sacred text

(Marty, 1986).

The United States is the only country in history to have defined itself as Judeo-Christian.

While the western world has consisted of many Christian countries and consists today of many

secular countries, only the United States has called itself Judeo-Christian. The United States is

also unique in that it has always combined secular government with a society based on religious

values. Consequently, this secular government of society violates the Judeo-Christian morality in

regards to factory farming.

Middle Eastern Morality

Middle Eastern Morality stands at the opposite extreme of Aristotle’s Golden Mean and

are in exact unity with the Judeo-Christian Morality in accordance with the issue at hand. Taken

from the Mahabharata, the Hindu bible quotes, “Do naught unto others that which would cause

you pain if done to you” (Mahabharata, Bk. 5, Ch. 49, v. 57). Similarly, the Buddhist faith

quotes something similar, “Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful" (Udana

Boyd 6

Varga 5:18). Or, "...a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon

another?" (Samyutta Nikkei v.353).

The Middle Eastern Morality comprises many individual religions, but mostly

encompasses Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Taoism, and Mormonism. The Middle Eastern

religions are often stated to be the oldest religious traditions or the oldest living major traditions.

They are formed of diverse traditions and have no single founder. Meat eating is mostly taboo,

as is the killing of animals, either for food or for a sacrifice. Most major paths of the Middle

Eastern religions hold vegetarianism as an ideal. There are three main reasons for this: the

principle of nonviolence (ahimsa) applied to animals; the intention to offer only "pure"

(vegetarian) food to a deity (divine being) and then to receive it back as Prasad, and the

conviction that non-vegetarian food is detrimental for the mind and for spiritual development.

Nonviolence is a common concern of all the vegetarian traditions (Armstrong, 1993).

In relation to animal rights, the Middle Eastern religions make the distinction between the

direct taking of life and eating meat which is already killed. Thus, these religions consider the

careers of being a butcher or a hunter unethical and ideally do not promote them by purchasing

meat. Although they are forbidden to eat specific types of meat (for reasons unrelated to killing)

and are dependent on offerings for food, these religious believers do pursue vegetarianism

(Armstrong, 1993).

Contrastingly, some of these religions do allow the consumption of meat, if the meat is

"halal" (lawful). However, the option of vegetarianism is also available. This is a personal

decision, supported by a general religious philosophy stressing kind treatment of animals.

Muslims, for example, have the freedom of choice to be vegetarians for medical reasons or if

they do not personally like the taste of meat. However, the choice to be a vegetarian can be

Boyd 7

controversial. It is noted in the Quran that "There is not an animal on earth or a bird that flies on

its wings - but they are communities like you." (The Quran, 6:38) Many Muslims who normally

eat meat will select vegetarian options when dining in non-halal restaurants. This way they can

be certain to observe dietary restrictions (Armstrong, 1993). As with any moral judgment, it is a

matter of reflecting on the issue and reaching a conclusion about what is believed to be correct.

What one culture finds acceptable, another does not. For example, Paul Johnston begs the

question of is our horror of incest simply the product of age-long conditioning or is incest

morally wrong? Its culture specific, just as the issue of animal cruelty is (Johnston, 1999).

This textual analysis will examine the two polar opposites that are of the religious beliefs

of the Judeo-Christian Morality and the Middle Eastern Morality looking at the issue associated

with factory farming. In accordance with author Michael Scully, animal activist, and Karen

Armstrong, religious expertise, this analysis will look to explain the issue at hand using

Aristotle’s Golden Mean.

Data and Analysis: Judeo-Christian Morality

(Abrahamic Religions: Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Baha’i Faith)

The term factory farming began with one pig, in one British slaughterhouse. Somewhere

along the production line it was observed that the animal had blisters in his mouth and was

salivating heavily. The worst suspicions were confirmed, and within days, borders across Europe

had been sealed and a course of action determined. Soon all of England and the world watched as

hundreds, and then hundreds of thousands, of pigs, cows, and sheep, and their newborn lambs

were taken outdoors, shot, thrown into burning pyres, and bulldozed into muddy graves. Some

were still stirring and blinking a day after being shot. The plague meanwhile had slipped into

mainland Europe, where the same ritual followed until, when it was all over, more than ten

Boyd 8

million animals has been disposed of. Completing the story was the requisite happy ending was a

calf heard calling from underneath the body of her mother in a mound of carcasses to be set

aflame. Christened “Phoenix,” after the bird of myth that rose from the ashes, the calf was spared

(Scully, 1994).

According to journalist and animal rights activist Andrew Sullivan, he discerned in these

scenes a “horrifying nothingness;” something about it all left people sick, sad, and empty. Years

have passed since the last ditch was covered over, but the facts of the case were plain and simple:

here were innocent, living creatures, and they deserved better. Foot-and-mouth disease is a form

of flu, treatable by proper veterinary care, preventable by vaccination, lethal neither to humans

nor to animals. These animals, millions of them not even infected, were killed only because their

market value had been diminished and because trade policies required it – because, in short,

under the circumstances it was the quick and convenient thing to do. By the one measure now

applied to these creatures, their lives had all become worthless. For them, the difference between

what happened and what awaited them anyway was one of timing (Scully, 1994).

When a quarter million birds are stuffed into a single shed, unable even to flap their

wings, when more than a million pigs inhabit a single farm, never once stepping into the light of

day, when every year tens of millions of creatures go to their death without knowing the least

measure of human kindness, it is time to question. In the laboratories, strange new beings of

mankind’s own creatures are being genetically engineered, cloned, and now even patented like

any other product ready for mass production. Even with all its possibilities for good, this new

science of genetic engineering carries the darkest implications of all for animals (Marty, 1986).

According to the future look outlook, very soon factory farms like Smithfield plan to

have tens of millions of cloned animals in their factory farms. Other companies are at work

Boyd 9

genetically engineering chickens without feathers so that one day all poultry farmers might be

spared the toil and cost of de-feathering the birds. For years, the livestock industry employed in

animal science departments have been tampering with the genes of pigs and other animals to

locate and expunge that part of their genetic makeup that makes them stressed in factory farm

conditions – taking away the desire to protect themselves and to live. Instead of redesigning the

factory farm to suit the animals, the animals are being redesigned to suit the factory farm (Marty,

1986).

Christianity -

In the Judeo-Christian Morality, individuals are called to treat animals with kindness, not

because they have rights or power or some claim to equality, but in a sense because they do not -

because they all stand unequal and powerless before us (Armstrong, 1993). Animals are so easily

overlooked, their interests so easily brushed aside. Whenever humans enter their world, from the

farms to the local animal shelter, to the African savanna, humans enter as lords of the earth

bearing powers of terror and mercy alike. This domination that humans possess requires

concentrated moral consideration and this domination is beginning to shed new light on the

subject (Scully, 1994).

According to religious expertise, Karen Armstrong, and for Catholics in particular, no

less an authority than Pope Benedict XVI has explained the spiritual stakes in relation to this

issue; asked recently to weigh in on the very question of factory farming, Cardinal Ratzinger told

German journalist Peter Seewald that “animals must be respected as our companions in creation.

While it is acceptable to use them for food, we cannot just do whatever we want with them.

Certainly, a sort of industrial use of creatures, so that geese are fed in such a way as to produce

as large a liver as possible, or hens live so packed together that they become just caricatures of

Boyd 10

birds, this degrading of living creatures to a commodity seems to me in fact to contradict the

relationship of mutuality that comes across in the Bible” (Armstrong, 1993).

Those religious conservatives who, in every debate over animal welfare, rush to state that

the animals themselves are secondary and man must come first are exactly right – only they do

not follow their own thought to its moral conclusion. Somehow, in their pious notions of

stewardship and dominion, humans always seem to end up with the singular moral dignity, but

no singular moral accountability to go with it. Humanity’s special status among creatures only

invites such questions as: what would the Good Sheppard make of our factory farms? Where

does the creature of conscience get off lording it over those poor creatures so mercilessly? “How

is it possible,” as Malcolm Muggeridge asked in the years when factory farming began to spread,

“to look for God and sing his praises while insulting and degrading his creatures? If all lambs are

the Agnus Dei (a Latin term meaning Lamb of God, and was originally used to refer to Jesus

Christ in his role of the perfect sacrificial offering that atones for the sins of humanity in

Christian theology), then to deprive them of light and the field and their joyous frisking and the

sky is the worst kind of blasphemy” (Marty, 1986).

This is a cynical but serious indictment. If reason and morality are what set human beings

apart from animals, then reason and morality must always guide individuals in how one treats

them, or else it is all just caprice, unbridled appetite with the pretense of piety. When people say

that they like their pork chops or veal just too much ever to give them up, reason hears in that the

voice of gluttony, willfulness, or at best moral complaisance. What makes a human being human

is precisely the ability to understand that the suffering of an animal is more important than the

taste of a treat.

Boyd 11

When looking for fitting targets of inquiry and scorn, groups like Smithfield Foods and

the National Pork Producers Council, come to mind. After the election of 2004, the National

Pork Producers Council rejoiced, “President Bush’s victory ensures that the U.S. pork industry

will be very well positioned for the next four years politically, and pork producers will benefit

from the long-term results of a livestock agriculture-friendly agenda. But this is no tribute.

Bush’s agriculture secretary, former Nebraska Governor Mike Johannas, has shown sympathy

for animal welfare. Additionally, there are a number and variety of supporters found in Congress,

from Republicans like Chris Smith and Elton Gallegly in the House to John Ensign and Rick

Santorum in the Senate, along with Democrats such as Robert Byrd and Barbara Boxer. If such

matters were every brought to President Bush’s attention in a serious way, he would find in the

details of factory farming many things abhorrent to the Christian faith and to his own kindly

instincts (Scully, 1993).

In short, Christianity, based on Judaism, prohibits cruelty to animals. Jesus’ central

teachings involve love, compassion, and mercy, and it is hard to imagine Jesus looking upon

contemporary factory farms and slaughterhouses and then happily consuming flesh. Jesus often

challenged people by including everyone within his circle of compassion. He embraced all

people, regardless of their ethnicity, gender, profession, social status, or medical status. Although

the Bible does not describe Jesus addressing the question of eating meat, many Christians

throughout history have believed that Christian love ultimately calls for a vegetarian diet.

Examples include Jesus’ first followers (the Jewish Christians), the Desert Fathers, Tertullian,

Origen, St. Benedict, John Wesley, Albert Schweitzer, Leo Tolstoy, and many others. Jesus was

much more concerned about the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law. He embraced

Theocentrism, which holds that everything comes from and belongs to God. Like Jesus,

Boyd 12

Christians hold the Hebrew Scriptures as sacred, and Christians can affirm, as the Psalmist said,

“The Lord is good to all, and his compassion is over all that he has made.” In the face of massive

suffering of animals on factory farms, dwindling natural resources, and environmental

degradation, Christian principles all point towards vegetarianism. Leading evangelical author

Tony Campolo has noted, “Being a vegetarian does have benefits for a hurting planet with

limited resources” (Novak, 1995).

Christians have always striven to minister to poor and hungry people. However, today the

inefficiency of meat eating works against that ministry. In the United States, 66% of the grains

are fed to animals being raised for slaughter, wasting most grains’ calories and proteins. Ron

Sider of Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary has observed, “It is because of the high level of

meat consumption that the rich minority of the world devours such an unfair share of the world’s

available food” (Scully, 1994). Ironically, Sider has added, by greedily devouring so much grain-

fed animal products, we are damaging our own health. The New Testament obligates Christians

to protect their health. For example, 1 Cor. 6:19 declares that our bodies are temples of the Holy

Spirit, and Christians regularly interpret this as a call to healthful living. Knowing the deleterious

effects of animal-based foods on human health, Christian principles favor a plant-based diet

(Smith, 1991).

Judaism –

The Torah (Hebrew Scriptures) describes vegetarianism as an ideal. In the Garden of

Eden, Adam, Eve, and all creatures were instructed to eat plant foods (Genesis 1:29-30). The

prophet Isaiah had a utopian vision in which everyone will once again be vegetarian: “The wolf

shall dwell with the lamb… the lion shall eat straw like the ox … They shall not hurt or destroy

Boyd 13

in all My holy mountain” (Isaiah 11:6-9). The Torah relates God giving humans “dominion”

over every living thing that moves upon the earth” (Genesis 1:28).

However, Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, first Chief Rabbi of pre-state Israel, pointed out

that such "dominion" does not give humans license to treat animals according to every human

whim and desire. The Torah and the rabbinic oral tradition preserved in the Talmud and Midrash

contain many instructions on how people should treat animals and the rest of creation. Because

Judaism focuses on honoring God as the all-powerful, all-knowing Creator of the universe,

Judaism teaches that we should love and protect all of creation, which belongs to God. Although

the Torah states that, after the Flood, God gave humans permission to eat meat (Genesis 9:3).

God also restricted humankind’s exploitation of animals. The Jewish people are especially

obligated to keep kosher dietary laws and detailed laws requiring humane treatment of animals.

Most (but not all) kosher laws deal with meat. For example, Jews may only eat certain animals;

they may not consume blood; and they may not consume meat and dairy products together.

These laws are divine decrees, given without explicit reasons. However, one of the explanations

found in the rabbinic tradition is that the permitted species are in general more peaceful and less

violent than others. This serves as an example to humans to refrain from cruelty and other base

behavior (Felder, 2004).

Judaism forbids tsa’ar ba’alei chayim, which means inflicting unnecessary pain on

animals. For example, Exodus 23:5 requires that one relieve the burden of an overloaded animal,

and the Fourth Commandment includes the instruction that Jews must allow livestock to rest on

the Sabbath. The revered medieval philosopher Moses Maimonides wrote that we should show

mercy to all living creatures. The 16th Century mystic Rabbi Moses Cordovero and 19th Century

thinker Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch expressed similar sentiments. By contrast, factory farms

Boyd 14

routinely confine animals in cramped spaces; often drug and mutilate animals; and deny animals

fresh air, sunlight, exercise, and any opportunity to satisfy their natural instincts. In response to

this, former Chief Rabbi of Ireland Rabbi David Rosen wrote, “The current treatment of animals

in the livestock trade definitely renders the consumption of meat as halachically (not kosher)

unacceptable.” Other rabbis, while agreeing that animals should be raised and slaughtered in

humane ways, do not agree that such meat is forbidden (Smith, 1991).

Other Jewish values favor vegetarianism. Judaism advocates treating the environment

respectfully, while animal agriculture squanders water, energy, land, and other resources.

Judaism holds that human life is sacred, and we should diligently care for our health. Since

animal-based foods can increase the risk of heart disease, diabetes, and certain cancers, we

should move towards a plant-based diet. Judaism encourages us to share our bread with hungry

people. Yet, the inefficiencies of animal agriculture waste grains and lands that could be used for

crops, thereby depriving hungry people of food. In summary, although Judaism does not mandate

vegetarianism, many Jewish teachings support the diet (Smith, 1991).

Islam -

The most holy Islamic writings are the Quran and the Hadith (sayings) of Prophet

Mohammad, and the latter includes, “Whoever is kind to the creatures of God is kind to

himself.” All but one of the 114 chapters of the Quran begins with the phrase “Allah is merciful

and compassionate.” Both the Quran and the Hadith of Prophet Mohammed provide dietary laws

that are similar to those of Judaism (Quran 2:172). It appears impossible for a faithful Muslim to

consume meat produced by the cruel methods of factory farming. Biographies of Mohammed

have described the prophet’s love of animals and his opposition to cruelty. The Quran states,

“There is not an animal on earth, nor a flying creature flying on two wings, but they are peoples

Boyd 15

like unto you.” (Surah 6, verse 38). Mohammed taught, “A good deed done to a beast is as good

as doing good to a human being; while an act of cruelty to a beast is as bad as an act of cruelty to

a human being.” Muslim theologian Al-Hafiz B. A. Masri, noting the cruelties of Western food

production, has called the flesh “sacrilegious meat” (Novak, 1995). Islam also teaches that

people should only eat healthy foods. Numerous studies have shown that the products of modern

factory farms, high in fat and laden with hormones and antibiotics, harm one’s health (Felder,

2004).

A distinctive element of Islam’s mystic branch called Sufism has been its call for

compassion. The great Sufi M. R. Bawa Mahaiyaddeen appealed to Muslims to reflect on the

meaning of slaughter. When describing Islamic slaughter (qurban) in his Ninety Nine Beautiful

Names of Allah, he said that the knife bearer should “… look into the animal’s eyes, he has to

watch the tears of the animal, and he has to watch the animal’s eyes until it dies – hopefully, his

heart will change” (Novak, 1995).

The Baha’i Faith -

The Baha’i Faith was founded by Baha’u’llah in 19th Century Persia. Baha’u’llah

encouraged compassion for animals, and he wrote, “Burden not an animal with more than it can

bear.” Similarly, Abdu’l-Baha, Baha’u’llah’s son, wrote, “It is not only their fellow human

beings that the beloved of God must treat with mercy and compassion; rather must they show

forth the utmost loving-kindness to every living creature. For in all the physical respects, and

where the animal spirit is concerned, the self same feelings are shared by animal and man.”

Abdu’l-Baha also wrote, “Ye must not only have kind and merciful feelings for mankind, but ye

should also exercise the utmost kindness towards every living creature. The physical sensibilities

and instincts are common to animal and man … Sensibility is the same whether you harm man or

Boyd 16

animal: there is no difference … Therefore one must be very considerate towards animals and

show greater kindness to them than to man. Educate the children in their infancy in such a way

that they may become exceedingly kind and merciful to the animals." Regarding meat-eating,

Abdu’l’Baha said, “Truly, the killing of animals and the eating of their meat is somewhat

contrary to pity and compassion, and if one can content oneself with cereals, fruit, oil and nuts …

it would undoubtedly be better and more pleasing.” Reverence for and protection of nature is a

central Baha’i tenet, which a plant-based diet generally supports. Baha’u’llah said, “Every time I

turn my gaze to the earth, I am made to recognize the evidence of the power and the tokens of

the bounty” (Novak, 1995).

Data and Analysis of the Middle-Eastern Morality

(Eastern Religions: Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Taoism, and Mormonism)

Hinduism -

Hinduism’s teachers and scriptures often expressly encourage a vegetarian diet, though

not all Hindus are vegetarian. Hindus almost universally avoid beef since they consider the cow

(Krishna’s favorite animal) sacred. Mahatma Gandhi, however, took Hindu vegetarian

observance one step further by declaring, “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can

be measured by the way in which its animals are treated.” Hinduism’s vast scriptures contain

thousands of passages recommending vegetarianism based on the profound link between ahimsa

(nonviolence) and spirituality. For example, the Yajur Veda says, “You must not use your God-

given body for killing God’s creatures, whether they be human, animals, or whatever.” Similarly,

Hindu law books base many directives on the principle of the sacredness of all life. Manusmriti

asserts, “Having well considered the origin of flesh-foods, and the cruelty of … slaying corporeal

beings, let man entirely abstain from eating flesh.” While the violence of slaughter wrongs

Boyd 17

animals, it also harms those who consume animals. Causing unnecessary pain and death

produces bad karma (ill-effects on oneself as a consequence of ill-treatment of others). Belief in

the sacredness of life, reincarnation, nonviolence, and the law of karma are central, inter-related

features of the Hinduism’s “spiritual ecology” (Novak, 1995). While Hinduism’s basis for

vegetarianism is deeply spiritual, its practical merit has also been confirmed by science. For

example, the prohibition against harming or killing cows frequently benefits nutrition in India.

Zebu cattle, prevalent in India, require no special grain feed or pastures and thrive on organic

material of no practical use to humans, such as stubble from harvested crops, roadside grasses,

and organic garbage from the village. From cattle, Indians obtain milk and dairy foods, labor,

transportation, and dung fuel (Felder, 2004).

Jainism -

Vegetarianism is expected practice among Jains, who hold that it is wrong to kill or harm

any living being. Jain traditions respect ahimsa (nonviolence), aparigraha (non-acquisition),

asteya (respect for other’s rights) and satya (truth). While Jains comprise less than 1% of India’s

population, they contribute more than half of all the money donated in India to provide medical

and other social assistance to India’s poor people (Felder, 2004).

Buddhism -

Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha, was a Hindu who accepted many of Hinduism’s core

doctrines, such as karma. His life and teachings offered special insights into how to address

problems of human existence, and he explicitly taught vegetarianism as a component of his

general instruction to be mindful and compassionate. The Buddha’s first sermon, called the

“Four Noble Truths,” focused on the nature of suffering and how to relieve suffering. Bhante

Henepola Gunaratna, founder of the Bhavana Society interprets the Buddha’s first sermon as

Boyd 18

calling for a meatless diet: “Cultivating the thoughts of non-harm and non-injury and abstinence

from killing any living being are so crucial for an individual’s peace, harmony, serenity,

contentment and attaining liberation from suffering that the Buddha included these principles in

the Noble Eightfold Path which is the Fourth Noble Truth of Buddhism.” Similarly, the

Surangama Sutra states, “…in seeking to escape from suffering ourselves, why should we inflict

it upon others? How can a bhikshu (monk) who hopes to become a deliverer of others, himself be

living on the flesh of other sentient beings?” It is not surprising, then, that the term “sentient

beings” is used repeatedly in Buddhist writings and refers to humans and animals (Novak, 1995).

Buddhists aim to relieve the suffering of all sentient beings. The Buddha encouraged

mindfulness as necessary for leading a compassionate life, and he forbade Buddhists from

engaging in occupations that involve killing animals, such as butcher, fisher, or animal farmer

(Smith, 1991).

Taoism -

The Chinese religion of Taoism holds nature as sacred, and this view also favors

vegetarianism. Taoism teaches that yin and yang are the two fundamental energies in the world,

and Taoists have always “taken the accomplishments of yin (the non-violent, non-aggressive

approach) and rescue of creatures as their priority.” For example, the famous Taoist Master Li

Han-Kung explicitly prohibited “those who consume meat” from his holy mountain. Taoism is

distinctive in stressing simplicity. As early as the 6th century BCE, the Taoist scripture called

Tao Te Ching warned against waste. The Tao Te Ching teaches that simplicity allows the

individual to live a peaceful life and it protects nature from overuse and pollution. Modern

studies of ecology and factory farming have demonstrated that meat production today is

extremely complicated and inefficient. The U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that meat

Boyd 19

consumption is far less efficient in producing protein than consumption of beans and grains.

Because it requires far more grain, modern meat production requires more pesticides, more

water, and more fossil fuel to run tractors to farm the extra fields of grain. Burning more fossil

fuel wastes natural resources and pollutes the planet. Taoist simplicity encourages eating

vegetables, grains, and fruits instead of meat. According to the Tao, the process of meat

production tends to be too yang – too aggressive; it involves extreme and unnecessary impact on

the environment (Smith, 1991).

Mormonism -

Mormons believe that God offered new revelations to Joseph Smith in the 19th Century,

and subsequent true prophets have presided over Christ’s church on earth. Doctrine and

Covenants notes that people should be righteous in all things and “do good,” including activities

not commanded by scriptures. Therefore, Mormonism encourages righteous behavior, which

presumably would include kindness to animals. Mormonism condemns killing animals

unnecessarily: “And wo be unto man that sheddeth blood or that wasteth flesh and hath no need.”

Mormonism does not require vegetarianism, but it does discourage eating animals unless

necessary: “Yea, flesh also of beasts and of fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the

use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly. And it is pleasing unto

me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.” In other words,

Mormons should only eat animals when non-animal foods are unavailable, and even then they

are to consume animals sparingly (Novak, 1995).

To conclude, vegetarianism has been a common thread among the major world religions,

even if only a minority has adopted the diet as an expression of their faith. For many people of

faith, vegetarianism reflects the Golden Rule: Christianity – “So, whatever you wish that men

Boyd 20

would do to you, do so to them” (Matthew 7:12); Judaism – “Do not do unto others what you

would not wish to be done to yourself – that is the entire Torah, the rest is commentary”; Islam –

“No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself”;

Baha’i Faith – “Blessed is he that preferreth his brother to himself”; Taoism – “Regard your

neighbor’s gain as your own gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss”; Hinduism – “This

is the sum of duty: do naught to others that which if done to thee would cause pain”; Jainism –

“A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated”; Buddhism –

“Hurt not others with that which pains yourself” (Novak, 1995).

With factory farming torturing animals on a scale unprecedented in human history and

with the growing environmental crisis threatening human civilization, the wisdom of the world’s

religions to respect nature and all its inhabitants has become much more than an expression of

ideal behavior. It has become a global imperative (Scully, 1994). This textual analysis argues

that factory farming violates the Judeo-Christian Morality (Abrahamic religions) and the Middle

Eastern Morality (Eastern religions) on, at the very least, five individual principles.

1.) The Divine Life Principle: life is sacred and individuals should strive to preserve its

dignity and integrity; the taking of life prematurely or unnaturally is wrong except in

cases where there is a substantial moral justification for doing so.

2.) The Compassion Principle: God condemns the unnecessary suffering of innocents

and calls on humans to protect the interests of the “least of these” against the

indifference and domination of the powerful; in cases where suffering is unavoidable,

humans are called to moderate it as much as possible.

Boyd 21

3.) The Stewardship Principle: The world belongs to God; God created it, cares about it,

and God calls us to be good stewards of the world and everything in it, including the

financial resources.

4.) The Individual Responsibility Principle: God calls us to seek what is right and good

for our physical, intellectual, and spiritual wellbeing as individuals.

5.) The Social Responsibility Principle: God calls individuals to love their neighbors as

ourselves and to seek a just and sustainable social order.

Boyd 22

References

Armstrong, K. (1993). A history of God. The Random House Publishing Group: New York.

Barnes, Jonathan. (2001). Roman Aristotle. Greek Literature, 8, 176 – 182.

Felder, Leonard. (2004). The ten challenges: spiritual lessons from the ten commandments for

creating meaning, growth, and richness everyday of your life. Sheffield Publishing

Company: Salem Wisconsin.

Johnston, P. (1999). Modesty, doubt, and relativism. The Contradictions of Modern Moral

Philosophy: Ethics after Wittgenstein. 85-95.

Marty, M.E. (1986). A Judeo-Christian looks at the Judeo-Christian tradition. Modern American

Religion (2), 858-860.

Novak, Phillip. (1995). The world’s wisdom: sacred texts of the world’s religions. Harper

Collins Publishers: New York.

Pratt, C. B. (1993). Critique of the classical theory of situational ethics in U.S. public relations.

Publish Relations Review 19(3), 219-234.

Scully, M. (1994). Dominion: the power of man, the suffering of animals, and the call to mercy.

St. Martin’s Griffin: New York.

Smith, Huston (1991). The world’s religions: our great wisdom traditions. Harper Collins

Publishers: New York.