I want to avoid reiterating previous DB discussions, so I am splitting this entry into two unrelated parts. Neither will really focus on any kind of animal ethics. The first will cover the two readings on Jainism, and the second will offer a critic of Kipling’s “Beast and Man”.

---

“How can we survive on a planet of ten billion points of infinite greed and pride?” (232)



Good point.
A few more good points: Why try? Is it a futile effort? Where will America be in the next twenty years? Where will the Middle East be? Africa? China? What condition will the planet be in? What is the most pressing humanitarian cause? Hunger? Disease? The environment? Animals?
Jainism is a religion that believes humans have “a moral obligation toward nonhuman creation… Jain teachings can serve to remind the world of the power and complexity of nature…” (232). I agree with the idea of responsibility and reverence towards nature that Jainism “preaches” (do they preach?), but I think my reasons are slightly different. Jainism came to this conclusion based on ahimsa, which is “… the largest love, [and the] greatest charity” (231). I reached this conclusion based on our (i.e. Homo sapiens) biological similarity and shared anatomical features with every other earthling in the kingdom Animalia. For example, vertebrates have a backbone just like us; mammals have hair and lactate just like us; primates have forward facing eyes, grasping hands just like us. (Can use successive semicolons? Probably not.)

The super family Hominoidea includes four species: Gibbons, Orangs, Gorillas, Chimps, and Humans. Each of these species with the exception of Gibbons uses tools. Tool use is taught to children, and passed down through generations. Depending on the species the tool use can be really advanced. This is an example of how interconnected humans are with other earthlings.


In my opinion, maliciously hurting an animal for one’s materialism and/or dominance is just like hurting a human being. Moreover, destroying the environment- our life source- is like killing a mother.

---

Now on to Kipling… (I feel like inserting some kind of manic laugh here).
Kipling came from an upper middle class English family; his father was an imperialist and avid supporter English involvement in WWI. This background is necessary for one to fully understand why Kipling’s text includes such a biased, inaccurate portrayal of India.
The “Beast and Man” is full of loaded diction that portrays Indians as uncivilized. This is most apparent when one encounters Kipling’s descriptions of Indian people. For example, page 249 offers a description of the goat and buffalo sacrifices in Bengal: “for there may be seen thousands of people gloating in delirious excitement over rivers of blood.” When one reads this sentence a barbaric image is brought to mind. The image immediately dominates readers’ thoughts, and they forget that the sentence lacks any contextual content. Kipling mentions that the ceremony is a sacrifice to Kali, but he never mentions who Kali is. He doesn’t describe the significance of the animal’s death, or how it is killed. Moreover, Kipling does further injustice to his readers and the Indian culture by comparing this sacrificial ceremony to an English man’s “decent solemnities [that are] described in the Bible or in Homer.” It’s like comparing apples to oranges; you just cannot compare cultures.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdEGJb5W5ks

READ THIS BEFORE WATCHING: I am not endorsing Steyn’s belief that Western culture is superior to Muslim culture. The relevance of this video to my DB lies in Steyn’s argument that cultures are not comparable. One cannot superimpose their supposed superior values on a country. Kipling doesn’t have an issue with eating meat, but, if he attempted to promote his belief in India where there is a “spontaneous desire to protect [cattle] from sufferings in old age” (265). It just wouldn’t work.

Another example of Kipling’s intentional misrepresentation of the history between Indian and England is apparent when he says, “They have done justice and loved mercy, they have protectted the lowly and weak, saved the widow from the fire, fed the famine-stricken, taught the ignorant, and made that a nation which was not a nation; -- but they kill and eat the cow, and are therefore, in a levitical sense, abominable” (254). I just want to laugh at this excerpt- he portrays England is valiant and benevolent, as if their action “[making] a nation which was not a nation” was done out of charity. Secondly, he simplifies “Indian resentment” (254) and attributes their disapproval to the English’s appetite for red meat.