View source for Is that rational, that another living entity like me should be killed for my benefit, for satisfying my tongue?

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"Is that rational, that another living entity like me should be killed for my benefit, for satisfying my tongue"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|Labangalatika}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|15Sep12}}
{{last|15Sep12}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=1|Con=0|Let=0}}
{{total|1}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:Is That]]
[[Category:Rational]]
[[Category:Another]]
[[Category:Other Living Entities]]
[[Category:Likeness]]
[[Category:Should Be]]
[[Category:Kill]]
[[Category:For]]
[[Category:Benefit]]
[[Category:Satisfied]]
[[Category:Tongue]]
[[Category:Questions Posed by Srila Prabhupada]]
</div>
<div id="Lectures" class="section" sec_index="4" parent="compilation" text="Lectures"><h2>Lectures</h2>
</div>
<div id="Philosophy_Discussions" class="sub_section" sec_index="13" parent="Lectures" text="Philosophy Discussions"><h3>Philosophy Discussions</h3>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononHegel_0" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="4" link="Philosophy Discussion on Hegel" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Hegel">
<div class="heading">Is that rational, that another living entity like me should be killed for my benefit, for satisfying my tongue?
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Hegel|Philosophy Discussion on Hegel]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Śyāmasundara: First we'll be discussing the ethical, social and political philosophy of Hegel. He believed that one's basic right was to be a person and respect others as persons.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. So what is the philosophy of killing animals?</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: Well, animals are considered as things and persons have the dominion over things.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Therefore they are rascals. Rascal philosophy. So the basic principle is this, one has right to be.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: One has the right to be a person.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: And respect others as persons.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. So why do they not respect others' person. The animal is also person. What is this philosophy? That is the defect, that one is a rascal and he is taking the position of a philosopher. That is the defect. He's a rascal number one. He does not respect others' individuality, and he philosophizes that ones individuality should be observed.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: He says that there are three basic rights. The first is property rights; the second is the right of contract; the third right is the right of redress of wrongs; in the sense that crimes should be punished.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. But it is not crime to kill an animal? The animal has no right to live independently?</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: They say that the standard of what is right is the universal or the rational will...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Is that rational, that another living entity like me should be killed for my benefit, for satisfying my tongue?</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: Their idea is that the animal is not in the same category as myself because it has no...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: So that's alright; then might is right? Hitler is right? When Hitler, Hitler kills the Jews, he's right? He thinks that they are not in my category.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: The animal cannot understand philosophy.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: What does he understand of philosophy? He is mad; he is less than an animal. He does not understand philosophy. He does not know that the animal has also a soul, the animal has also life. Then he should be killed first.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: He said that one standard whether something is right or wrong is that if it is self-contradictory, if somebody's action is self-contradictory.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: He is actually self-contradictory. He is going to give right to others that he does not want to give the same right to the animals. That is self-contradictory.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: He uses the example of someone who doesn't want anyone to steal something from him but he steals something from others.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: And that is self-contradictory.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, self-contradictory action is here, that I don't want to be killed but I kill another animal. This is self-contradictory. Supporting by some nonsense philosophy. I don't want to be killed but I kill other, this is self-contradictory.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: He would say a self-contradictory act is irrational.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: Is not acting according to the rational will.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: He is irrational and he is taking the position of a philosopher.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: Another one of his ideas is that conflict creates progress. So that a man kills the animal and progresses.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Then I kill him and make progress?</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: Yes, that is the law of nature.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Then kill him and make progress?</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: He says that acting in accordance with a conscience is the right type of activity.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: The conscience, the so-called conscience is created. You go on killing, your conscience will be killing conscience, "It is all right." The thief becomes accustomed to steal, the conscience will say, "Yes, I must steal. It is my right." So you can create your conscience in that way. By association, by misguiding, they also create their conscience. Just like the Christian religion says, "Thou shalt not kill," but they are killing, creating a conscience, "Yes, killing is all right." In the religion it is forbidden, "Thou shalt not kill," but they are creating another conscience, "It is right." The conscience is created by association. By good association, conscience is the good conscience and by bad association, a bad conscience is created. So there is no such standard as conscience. Conscience means discriminating power.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: He says that there is an absolute conscience, which means pure rationality. Whatever is purely rational is conscience.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Pure rationality is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. That is purest. Unless one comes to that standard, the so-called conscience, so-called philosophy is of no value.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: He says that punishment for crime is justified because it vindicates justice and restores rights.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, therefore when one is killing an animal, he should be prepared for being killed. That will be justice. That is Manu's... Manu-saṁhitā says that when a man, murderer is hanged, that is complete justice, complete justice. That is to save him, because without being hanged in this life, he if he escapes justice, then he will have to suffer next life very severely. So to save him from so many troubles in the next life, if he is killed, I mean to say, hanged, in this life, then he is saved. Therefore the king who is hanging him is doing him justice. Life for life. If this is the justice, then why one should not be prepared of being killed because he is killing an animal? That is justice. That is Vedic philosophy. In Vedic philosophy, when an animal is killed, it is said that "You are animal, you are being sacrificed before goddess Kālī, so you get next chance to become a human being." That means he is given a lift from the evolutionary process to come to the human being because he is giving his life innocent, and one man wants to kill him, he will be killed. So because you are being killed before the deity, you get next chance human being and you have got the right to kill him. This is kālī-da, mantra. So any sane man will understand that "I am going to be killed by him so why shall I take the risk."</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>