Respect life
The ancient Indian religion Jainism prescribes “ahimsa”, or a path of non-violence to all living beings. Jainism defines violence as intentional or unintentional harm. This could be related to “Empathise” so I have placed it second in the list, although I think this list should not be considered a list of priority.
Jains and many modern vegans would say that the precept Respect Life means that one should not eat dairy products or honey because you are mistreating the creators of those products. Furthermore it is possible for us, especially in times when we can move food products around so efficiently, with food supplements readily available if required, to be vegan.
Depending on how you interpret killing, it could be argued that it is impossible for an animal not to kill in order to eat. How this is interpreted is a matter of considerable debate.
As we delve into the workings of our natural world, it seems that most or all organisms have complex relationships with other species involving symbiotic relationships such as mutualism, commensalism and parasitism.
All large animals, including us, house large numbers of micro-organisms in our bodies. Many of them live in us in a symbiotic or mutually dependent relationship, helping us digest our food, for instance. Some are parasites that take and do not give back, and others are downright detrimental to our health, and our immune system kills them as quickly and effectively as it can.
Ultimately, killing to eat is a big part of living. However if it must be done in order to feed ourselves or to survive, surely it should be possible to kill with minimal violence, suffering and pain? Animals that we nurture to eat should have lives that are what we imagine to be enjoyable, and their deaths should be with minimal suffering. If that is so, most people in the Western (modern) world should be vegan, unless they are very careful how they source their meat. In general modern beef, pork, chicken, and dairy farms cannot comply with treating animals well, as price competition determines that costs override considerations of animal welfare. Most people living in other parts of the world would find themselves in a similar predicament or worse. However large parts of the now-inhabited planet are not conducive to any form of food production except eating meat (the Arctic and the other hot and cold deserts). The reindeer herded by the Laps may not have a worse life than their relatives the caribou, who roam free. They may even pay a small price for their lack of freedom, and the occasionally killing of one of the herd for their resources. They get protection form wolves and other predators.
My interpretation of Respecting Life should prohibit me from eating meat sourced from factory farms, but does not if the animals have space to roam and are treated with compassion.
Respect Life does not necessarily mean you cannot defend yourself or your community. Most people consider it reasonable to state that if there is no other option, and violence has to be used in order to defend your life or perhaps even your rights, this can be justified. In evolutionary terms we could not exist today without having in our nature a strong will to survive at almost any cost, and an element of self defence in the face of a threat to our existence or well-being. Those who are overly altruistic would die out. However too often in our history we justify violence and greed by magnifying a perceived threat, or allowing a threat to build. Such acts should not be justified. Debate and paths to understanding should be sought first.
A huge debate today is how do you define a life. A Jain would say that it is any life, including flies and ants, and perhaps bacteria and micro-organisms? Most people consider a life worthy of respect should have feelings, but we don´t know how other animals really feel. Our feelings are actually tools that have evolved over time. We feel a hot iron, not because we have special feelings, but because pain is the way our body warns us of danger. If that is the case it would be logical to assume that a fly feels pain in a similar way for the same need. We cannot imagine how a fly feels because it is so different from us, and we see it as alien. We sometimes correlate the size of an animal with its ability to feel. We think a larger animal must feel more, or a mammal must feel, but a smaller animal or more alien class of animal does not, but this is not proven.
A similar debate rages over the implications of abortions. Some religious groups maintain that the potential to life is itself sacred. They would argue that a sperm fusing with an egg is the moment of the potential to a life beginning, and is sacrosanct. I think that view is a luxury permissible in a world where there is no threat from overpopulation, and the resultant effects and consequences. I will write elsewhere about cause and effect, and how in a sense our rights change when we change our environment. Today we have the power to conduct an abortion. How we decide will effect who is or is not born. Since we live in a densely populated world, to the point where we are threatening our resources, who is or is not born will in many cases effect the quality of lives of others, and not just the quality, but sometimes their prospects (whether they survive long, or have fulfilled lives or not). As discussed before it is likely many animals, or all, have what we call feelings. In many Western countries the legality of abortion is based on how science views the level of consciousness of the fetus and what other factors there might be, such as deformities or genetic abnormalities that would threaten the life of the fetus, or would mean the life expectancy would be very low. The sooner a mother can know she is pregnant and the sooner she can know the prospects of the fetus (if it is healthy or not), the sooner she can decide to terminate the pregnancy. An early termination is less controversial, and most terminations in developed countries happen early. Late terminations are very disturbing, even when the fetus´ prospects of survival is limited.
Now that we have increasingly more control over our lives, especially longevity, the question of quality of life becomes more relevant. Respect Life could be interpreted as a total ban on the ending of human life, or as a sense of treasuring life and respecting the wish for some who are suffering to end their lives. Provided we can “know” the wishes of the person, and consider that they understand the full meaning of their wish, this second interpretation complies with my understanding of the Empathise precept.