Thursday, September 15, 2016

ahimsa & the R_E_S_P_E_C_T principle


i open with this R&B plea.

i'd like to defend an ecological view of ahimsa. jainism was "ecological" before ecology.

my argument takes this deductive form:

all jiva are sentient
we (jiva) are all ONE
_____________
himsa-ing jiva is himsa-ing ONEself, i.e., all. 
THUS, himsa-ing is wrong.

the jaina ecological approach strikes a balance between jiva (human & non-human animals) and a-jiva (plant life, fungi & protista & non cellular life and the rest). how to bring all this together? to address the idea of balance let's take a look at immanuel kant's second formulation:

treat people as ends never as means to an end 

why only (Menschheit)?  universalizability does not obtain exclusively amongst "Mensch." true universalizability must include all Jiva i.e. all sentient beings (including non-human animals of course). would kant agree? not insofar as animals cannot reason. we're all jiva insofar as jiva has vernunft (reason).

non-human animals cannot partake of this moral/political contract. but vernunft is not the best standard in the jiva kingdom, instead, we should go by sentience (here the british utilitarians had an advantage).

jainism finds kantian's ethics too anthropocentric. jainas defend a universal jiva-centered democracy!

how about a-jiva? again, jainism is naturally closer to ajiva than other systems.

a centerpiece of jaina philosophy is that we're all ONE. it's easier to extend ahimsa to ajiva (as far as jiva permits, i.e., jiva has to eat in order to survive), and to extend ahimsa via aparigraha (non-possessiveness), i.e., nature is not ours to possess.   

from ahimsa we get another interesting development: 1- vegetarianism, which according to ayurveda & yoga, lead to clarity and upeksa (equanimity) of mind, while also being beneficial to the body & 2- pacifism in politics (which does not exclude legitimate defense). ahimsa has important politico-economic implications for human interactions. imagine a 3- jaina form of economics.

what would it look like?

1- ahimsa in our business deals, 
2- minimizing jiva suffering instead of increasing human-jiva profits,
3- homo reciprocans over homo economicus (cooperation instead of needless competition, 
still a good but less than capitalism defends), 
3- long term vs. short term profit (observes the future as a stockholder), 
4- conserving instead of wasting (aparigraha),
5- more local less global, (OM), 
6- happiness vs. material gain,    

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think it'd be a beautiful economic system if everyone would adopt a Jain philosophy to their public and private dealings with each other, but I don't think it's really possible. I can see one person acting in a way were he/she does his/her dealings and considers all sides, options, consequences and chooses an equilibrium (for lack of a better word) between his/her person gain/happiness/advance and the other person's, which is the ideal natural outcome of any economic transaction. Also, for a macro-economy, if everyone were to take that stand, that is favor a long term profit (small, but constant) over a quick buck, the world would be in a much better situation than what it is at current. There would be less waste, more stability, probably less overall stress,the poverty level would probably drop and the gross wealth would be more spread out. Also, people would probably be more conscious with their spending. I think this whole macro-mentality of "live today as if there's no tomorrow" that we have adopted is going to bite us in the ass come the next 20 yrs and then after (it starting to already), not to mention our collective cynicism. I mean, some people (person experience) feel a liberty and justification on swindling others, just in assuming "they'd/he'd/she'd screw me over if they'd/he'd/she'd have the chance." Most people just don't trust each other, and I think that's the sad reality that may lead to our downfall and prevents our true advancement. We should create an economy that favors the majority and protects the minority (and in the case of our current one, the majority)and would provide a stable economic base for the generations after ours and keep a constant upward (most likely very slow) shift to human prosperity, not to mention one where we can find a balance between our needs and our environment.
-Manny Alonso

Anonymous said...

Kant's categorical imperative does have much to do with humans..and seemingly only humans, so I'd agree with the fact that jainism finds Kantian's ethics too anthropocentric. However, I believe it was he who said to "treat people as ends, never as means to an end" and that totally makes sense, and yeah, a Jaina would ask "why only menschheit?" but it doesn't mean they woud disagree completely. As for the Jaina form of economies, I think it's lovely. No violence, less suffering, the completion of long lasting goals and lots of happiness. It sounds perfect! Too perfect to be true, I think. I like the idea of ahimsa and it leading to vegetarianism and pacifism. Although it’s probably a naïve thought, I still appreciate and like the whole idea and concept of ahimsa. I didn’t get too much the whole extension of ahimsa to ajiva, because ajiva is all nonliving, and ahimsa is having to do with nonviolence to living things, right? But I do like the relation of ahimsa to non-possessiveness, and that you added: “nature is not ours to possess” because it’s true. And I actually think that often.

-Carolina Vera

atRifF said...

There would be less waste, more stability, probably less overall stress,the poverty level would probably drop and the gross wealth would be more spread out.

i follow you manny, on the other hand, civilization has its karma (history) with its causal becoming. if you compare our social arrangements with that of, say, ants (much more hierarchically organized society). we're getting some place, only we don't know exactly "where."

Vini Giannattasio said...

Wasn't Kant a major racist? The book Kant and Racism by Thomas E. Hill Jr and Bernard Boxill from the Oxford Press seems to argue that. I also have such information on my previous Philosophy professor. The book leads to the assertion that, in Kant's view, there are tiers of humanity ascribed to the races. The function of “end” would only belong to an white European, tearing the “oneness” premise of the proposed argument asunder.

Isn't generalization a logical fallacy? Ahimsa commits the same error that Kant gets away with: categorical imperative may only apply to, and be reversible to, the same tier of manifestation. That is why he restricts his logic to humans (whatever his racial definition of that was). How does a higher tier of consciousness, keeping in mind the class about yoga, is reciprocal to its inferior?

Again, ahimsa is subjective. By the stated equivalency, if one desires to harm oneself, one is exempt from the ecological argument. I understand that the principle of society is to build, not to harm. However, society is a sum of its parts. The ecological argument requires the delusion of individual self-respect. Such utopia requires the solution of the perennial predicament of existential anxiety. Maybe yoga offers an alternative. However, in my opinion, it miserably fails, as the categorical imperative used in the argument, because it presupposes selflessness when the very core of yoga, and dharma and ahimsa is the evolution of the ego.


Yes, it would be great to have an economy like that, but the “law of predation”, be it in capitalism, or jiva eating ajiva, or molecules binding etc overrules the lesser law of ahimsa. Moreover, the jurisprudence of history is heavily against it.


By the way, I do appreciate the argument and the proposition; the world needs selflessness desperately. I just like to fight. I guess its like the tale of the frog and the scorpion.


Vinicius Giannattasio

Anonymous said...

I really love the idea of this economic system it seems as though it would be super beneficial for everyone as most family businesses will all be supported equally there would also be a sense of more involved community but although this is my ideal view of how things should be it is a little difficult to attain since most people don't really care about just the pure bliss of living a happy life but as said are more egocentric instead of ecocentric and if someone cares more about quick material gain this system is a little impossible to maintain. It would be the exact opposite of our system now since a pacifist wouldn't need to fight wars which the reason for wars are certain gains. We would definitly need to test it out to see how it would work out with all of our modern day issues also since many people cant understand the concept that nature isn't our to possess.

-Jasmin

Anonymous said...

Through time, there are certain men and women who are born into this world with the purpose of delivering a message to humanity on how to be. From the earliest Yogis to Buddha, Socrates, Moses, Jesus, Gandhi, and Kant, each individual delivered a different message, yet they are all saying the same thing. If we focus on the differences we can’t see what they have in common. However, I believe the principles that they have in common are what we should take a look at, and those principles are ahimsa. Maybe they are not ahimsa by definition and some may put the teachings of certain masters in a box and give them a name such as Buddhism, Judaism or Christianity, but truly it is my belief that that wasn’t the intention of the original teachers. If all these men were sitting at a table today, I think they would agree on the Golden Rule, do onto others as you would like others to do onto you. With the understanding that we have today about humanity, biology, ecology and the other sciences, if these masters were previewed to this information their message would be different. I say lets apply the Golden Rule to all things, which is ahimsa.

You can argue that in the bible it states that man rules over all things in the planet, I like to believe that was God’s way of saying “Hey, if you need to eat something or use something for shelter – do it”, But I don’t think he meant it in the sense of treating animals and nature as if there were no consequences for our actions. Hence why we are seeing catastrophic consequences for the way we have been behaving. We still have violence across the globe, over consumption of resources and we mistreat each other in all levels of interaction from the family unit, to business practices, government-to-government and interpersonal relationships.

The way humanity has been behaving isn’t ahimsa. In fact, as a species we have been doing the complete opposite. Which goes against what all the enlighten ones have told us. Do you think if Moses were alive today that he would agree with the way major corporations process food? What would Jesus say about our business ethics?

So I say, lets apply the golden rule to all things, yes even inanimate objects. I understand this poses an issue because some may say “we need things to build, live and consume” and that’s correct – we do. But it should be done with ahimsa and the Golden Rule. Use only what you need, recycle what you can, treat animals and nature with dignity and love for their sacrifice.

Laz

Anonymous said...

In almost every single class that I’ve taken at Miami Dade I always get extremely annoyed at some point by people (or Kant, in this case), talking about how mankind is superior and blah, blah, blah. I will say it once and only once. A non-bat cannot know what it is to be a bat. The anthropocentricity of mankind is very clear in several cases. As humans, we pretty much need each other to survive. If a curse was placed on me and tomorrow I woke up in some grassland as a solitary leopard…my “intellect” would not do me any good because I’m a non-leopard and I haven’t the faintest idea of how to be one, let alone survive as one. Perhaps animals don’t have time for all the things we claim make us superior because they are too busy trying to conserve energy and use it when needed to stay alive. I sound like a member of PETA at this point so I’m just going to stop ranting…but, boy, do I feel better now.

Now to focus on the topic at hand...if the world could be all rainbows and butterflies as expressed in your argument about using a Jain approach to ecology-then that sure would be nice. To me, these ideas are something that I’ve just grown up believing would make things better and quite honestly, I’ve always thought that with all of the “intellect” we have, using this approach would be common sense? As I grew up I realized that common sense is not so common and that unfortunately, not everybody really cares about the principle of oneness in the same ways as some of the rest of us do. It would just be nice to have others be….nice. Cooperation for the common goal of supporting the universe (oneness) would be extremely productive for all of us.

Although I was speaking about something slightly different earlier, I would like to come back and say that we are not solitary leopards. We are human beings and like it or not we NEED each other. We also NEED the natural world and thus logic dictates that we NEED to take care of it. If sucks that I have to emphasize the fact that these things are necessities…but I do not feel that it would help my plea if I were to mention selflessness. I live by my rules and selflessness can sometimes play a big role in that but I will not preach something that I feel the individual will only truly learn from inside. I’m excluding people who have never been shown kindness because there are cases where selflessness can be observed and modeled but that would lead me somewhere else right now.

If we thought a little bit more about the human quality of kindness and not intellect then maybe things would be different.

-Veronica Gomez Musa

Anonymous said...

I understand that a Jaina has to be practical, like jiva consuming ajiva in order to survive. So what would a modern Jaina do about, lets say, an infestation of roaches or ants in their home? Will they even see it as an "infestation" as long as it doesn't inhibit their way of life? Would the modern day Jaina just call in the exterminator? Again, going to something like seeing an ant on our arm. I can only speak for myself but I have the immediate reaction to smack at it if I feel it move across my skin. I do, every once in a while, return it back to the ground but it takes effort to go against something that is instinctual (or habitual, however you want see it). It's a silly question but I'm interested in how a Jaina would treat animals like roaches, or even raccoon that many of us see as pests.

I also love the idea of the Jaina form of economics and, even if a few people take on this mentality the world will be a better place. On the other hand, I don't believe that it possible for the whole world to embrace this, especially with the opposite mentality the world has today. Something as simple as using things until they are worn out or broken isn't customary as many throw away out of style shoes or buy the latest phone when their current one is fully functional. If I'm not willing to start acting on this like buying more things locally then I can't expect others to do the same.

~Katherine Davila

atRifF said...

Vini, Kant wasn't a major racist. Or better, he was as racist as I would have probably been --if born in Königsberg in 1724, i.e., a whole different Weltanschauung. My point: going back in time to analyze and critique morals requires qualifying the possibility of future incursions into our own "racism." But go on, I appreciate your resistance!

Veronica: Unfortunately, anthropcentrism is a common malady.

By the way, don't mind me.

Kate Blazej said...

After hearing the class discussion on yoga, I am both enthused and bewildered at the actual practice in eastern lifestyle and the western connotation. Yoga is the inward movement which leads to estasis, a practice of hinduism, buddhism and Jainism. As a person who practices yoga in the physical sense, I find it helps in many spiritual ways. For example Asana is control of the posture and spiritual aspect of the body. This leads me to believe that if one's mind and body are in synch, then spiritual balance can be found. It may not be easy, because nothing is (of course) but practicing pranayama (breathing) can help one reach dhyana. This is the state of Zen or a pure mind. However, the Samadhi is the state of superior consciousness and to attain this, one must be pure of heart, mind, body, and soul. My question is, with so many rules, how can one achieve these goals?


Of course, these terms are all new to me, but I relish in the ability to learn something new about culture and religion everyday. Looking forward to discussing this.

Thanks for reading,
Kate Blazej

Anonymous said...

Like everyone else, I find the notion of a Jainistic (is that a word?) economy appealing… but how long would It last???

I believe that, just like in yin and yang, you can’t have light without the dark and vice versa. For one thing, you wouldn’t know what would be good for you if it weren’t for the bad. For example, if our class were a civilization just starting out, how would we know to barter impartially if we never bamboozled, deceived, or swindled each other a time or two? And let’s say, for the sake of the argument, that we did have this unanimous agreement that we were to treat others as we would like to be treated, how long would it be before the snake in the grass began to rear its ugly head? Before the elephant in the room was addressed? Before we actually realized that we could get over on one another! The Jainas were on the ball when they thought of all of this, but it sounds better suited for the non-human jiva to me! Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for the ideas that do the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. But, at the same time, knowing people like I do, I wouldn’t hold my breath…
Rosemary Session

Fabio. V said...

Taking into account that Kant was a devout Christian and Christianity is anthropocentric itself, we can depict the roots of his influence. That is, we can have an idea as to why it is that the notions of the categorical imperatives are geared solely towards Menschheit. However, beyond that, I believe if Kant had the opportunities, the scientific knowledge and the understanding that we have nowadays about society and its concomitants, he would’ve extended his theory in manner to which it would fit those animals by which we identify as not gifted with reason (as opposed to lower animals). I believe weak Kantianism is flexible enough to contrive space to accommodate other non-human animals. Jaina can be seen as a practical aspect of Hinduism, and because of this practicality, comparing and contrasting Kantianism and Jainism is more than feasible, but it seems as though Kantian ethics here wasn’t given a fair fight. There is much more to it than simply the categorical imperative, for example the notion of duty and obligation underlying the imperatives. What precedes the imperatives is what Kant identifies as a maxim and a maxim has to be universal in order to satisfy and establish a standard that isn’t harmful. We can interpret that in a non-anthropocentric way. If we borrow the idea behind a universal maxim of moral law and if we include the literal meaning of ‘universality’ when concocting a law, then we can use it to produce geocentric or ecologically favorable rules.

Anonymous said...

Ihink the Jaina were/are very wise and enlightened in their philosophy. There are many ways to "BE". A person can be thought of a microcosm for a Culture. So, just as a person can be peaceful, a culture can be peaceful. The Jaina thought very much appeals to my ideal philosophy which has developed in me as ive matured and meditated. (Full disclosure-I used to be pretty vegan for a plethora of reasons, but due to lack of discipline and circumstance, I'm not close to that ideal anymore). I like the theory that to himsa another is to himsa oneself. Talk about a way to regulate one's actions!! It may be hard for some to imagine this modus operandi, but I can imagine it. In extensions, if the standard mode of operation is pacifism, it becomes easier to be pacifist. Similarly, if countries are aggressive and fearful (defensive), it becomes easier to justify aggression. A good example being warhawks who "want to strike first". I am curious, what is the nature of humanity? No, we will never be perfect. But can we, as a whole species, or as a whole culture be peaceful? Will there always be that one person who messes it up for everyone? My intuition is that we can do better, and that we can be peaceful. That it is a choice of "what ought I/We do" that a person makes. And a person is a microcosm of a culture in my opinion. Similar, I think, to the God in the Universe/Cell argument we have made. I think it benefits those who benefit from the exploitative philosophies that are opposite of the Jainist philosophy for us to believe that we can't do better. That the way things are-- is reflective of the way they will always be. --See for me, even just saying that sounds utterly flawed. Change is inevitable. Its also interesting that, from my brief survey of the comments, most of the class seems to support JainEco. Perhaps its skewed because we re all in an eastern philosophy class ;)

-Geoff Robbins

**I think it woukd be wonderful if we could do some yoga, either in or outside of class**

Anonymous said...

First, I apologize for my absence from class. I’ve been stuck in bed with a terrible sickness.
Now back to something interesting. When I read this topic post, a few of things stood out to me.
Kant is excessively anthropocentric. (I feel that goes without being said and I don’t really have to touch upon this more.)
I eat meat. I eat veggies. I am an omnivore and I enjoy my tuna tetaki just as much as I enjoy potatoes. Though I disagree with eating animals because they too are life and to slaughter them for the sake of my taste buds is morally incorrect. Conflicted, I do my best to eat animals that are in the most humane conditions to my knowledge (like Triff).
Last time I was in class Professor Triff provided an example about a violin being pawn for $500 when its actual worth was that of a Monet painting.
Turning this in now before time is up, hopefully Triff is not punctual tonight so I can continue onward about that topic, pacifism, and a Jaina form of economics.
-Manuel Valdes

Anonymous said...

Woo got it in on time.
To continue on the violin conversation, which also correlates with a Jaina form of economics, that would be ideal. The concept is great, but unrealistic thanks to capitalism.
We had this discussion in my political philosophy class fairly recently, and came to the conclusion that capitalism is the ultimate downfall. Take capitalisms conditioning out of the equation and this world would be completely different. The reason why communism is a good IDEA is because it will never work. People will begin to want more. Why does the guy that picks up trash make the same as the heart surgeon? Or the construction worker the same as the engineer?
There is nothing wrong with striving for more or wanting to better yourself. Somewhere down the line mankind lost sight of the value of virtue and became overly obsessed with objects and possession. It truly is unfortunate.

-Manuel Valdes

Anonymous said...

Truly didn't mean to plagiarize over my fellow classmate Manny, but as I read some comments and try to answer the question of how this article finishes I couldn't agree more. It'd be great to have an economic system if the majority of people will adopt a Jain philosophy. For obvious, reasons such as: "ECOcentric" point of views, cooperation over competition on market (maybe it’ll help NASDAQ since nowadays its going “dark”) and overall long-term economical stability.
I absolutely love this whole idea or form of living being portrayed in economics. At the same time even though it would be the greatest thing for global economy, I find it close to impossible to achieve.
And to finalize I believe that Kant’s view is a must in todays society for anybody to refute it and grow away from it. It might sound ironic but I do think that we must see a negative point for anybody to counter it with a positive even if his views are self-centered.
This life is not but an every day fight to become better.

Anonymous said...

I forgot to sign my last comment Francisco Baumgarten submit it at 10:49 pm

Anonymous said...

I had a hard time understanding this concept but I think I understand a bit better now. I believe personally that a world with a jainistic view or philosophy towards everything, we would live in a much more idealistic or utopian society. There is absolutely no violence, no negative attributes, and no negative thoughts, thus promoting greater things to come to you. I personally admire the fact of ahimsa and himsa, and what you said about our lives and how we cannot change the path of which we are on but we can think differently to see the world differently. This type of economy would promote fair business and with that we are much more open to new people and ideas compared to how our economy is now, where big corporations runs things. An economical standpoint of Jainism would not be so bad after all.

Ethan Epshteyn

Vini Giannattasio said...

not bad Veronica!!!!!