Both the Stoics and the Taoists share a somewhat similar attitude about death - it is part of nature and should not be denied. Compare the Stoic example of Seneca to a vignette in Zhuangzi:
“Whatever existed before us was death. What does it matter whether you cease to be, or never begin? The outcome of either is just this, that you don’t exist.” (Epistle 114.27)
Zhuang Zi’s wife passed away, so his old friend Hui Zi came for a visit of condolence. When he arrived, he saw that Zhuang Zi was sitting on the ground, drumming a pot and singing a song. He did not seem to be grieving, and this seemed very inappropriate to Hui Zi.-
He said to Zhuang Zi: “What are you doing? Your wife has been there for you all those years, raising your children and building your family with you. Now she is gone, but you feel no sadness and shed no tears. You are actually drumming and singing! Isn’t this a bit much?”
“It’s not what it looks like my friend.” Zhuang Zi faced Hui Zi’s emotions. “Of course I was struck with grief when she passed on. How could I not be? But then, I realized that the life I thought she lost was actually not something she had originally. During all that time before her birth, she did not possess life, a physical form, or indeed anything at all. She ended up in exactly the same state, so she did not lose anything.”
---
Now considering the situation about the ox: "Now we can argue that their nature is not to be carved up for human consumption, so it turns out that Cook Ding is acting skillfully, but not ethically." As Huang says it: "the natural tendency, the inherent nature, or the inborn nature of oxen is obviously not to be carved by a cook, that of trees is not to be cut by the carpenter, and that of a cicada is not to be caught by the cicada catcher."
But Seneca has a different attitude, in that the means of death is a part of life:
"Seneca believed that life is only a journey toward death and that one must rehearse for death throughout life. Here, he tells us how to practice for death, how to die well, and how to understand the role of a good death in a good life."
What is missing is the notion of a "good death" in juding the ethics of Cook Ding. If we are all part of nature, then seen in the context of an acceptance of the reality of death, the inherent nature of the ox is to eventually die. Given that, a "good death" for the ox is one that is in accordance with its nature: that of a domesticated animal.
Antony, thanks for the parallelism between Seneca and Zhuang Zi. Impressive indeed, and goes once again to confirm the notion that ancient ethical intuitions are more similar across cultures than one might at first suspect. And, I would add, this similarity arises from the fact that all these people were thinking about the (universal, in my mind) human condition.
However, I'm still not convinced about the ox. Seneca can talk about a virtuous death because he is a human being who can consciously choose to think, and confront, death in a certain way. That option is not open to the ox.
The idea of what is "natural" for a domesticated animal is not straightforward. One could argue that there cannot be any such thing, because domestication is not itself natural. (Yes, I know, everything that humans do is also natural because we are part of nature, but you know what I mean, in this context.) I honestly don't know. Happy to leave that discussion to you and Yong Huang. As far as I'm concerned, I think Jeremy Bentham was right when he said that the crucial issue about treatment of animals (domestic or not) is suffering.
The crucial issue in the treatment of animals is their suffering. One can be cruel and impose needless suffering, or avoid cruelty by minimizing suffering. The wild oxen will die due to disease, starvation or predation from carnivorous animals- perhaps some combination of more than one of these, which would especially cause their suffering. The domesticated oxen will likely be fed, and cure of disease, before succumbing to human predation. While the domesticated oxen is not free to choose, neither is the wild oxen. For that matter, neither is the wild carnivore preying on the oxen free to choose how to take a life. But the human can choose to how to slay the oxen, to minimize or to revel in cruelty. For me, my choice also involves not wasting food; while the oxen no longer has exists, it is shameful to waste such a sacrifice.
Wow and I just learned something new!!! So it's indeed cook Ding not Cook Pao in this case! Usually Chinese have their family name first, but in this case Pao(庖) actually means cook, and Ding(丁) is indeed his family name. Literally Cook Ding! 😅 I've been wrong all my life up this point!! I just to call him cook Bao, which is even more wrong!! Because I confused the character with the Japanese name for kitchen knife (包丁). 😂😂😂 this is way too many revelations in one day..🤦🏻♀️
Haha 😂 I read that oxen story when I was 10 years old. I remember being a bit shocked, because up until that point, I thought Zhuangzi was a vegetarian. There were so many references of magnificent beasts in his stories that I felt he sure treated animals the same way as, even higher than, humans.
But I think since then I re-read a lot of Zhuangzi and realised that Taoism was more a process of understanding the natural order of things. There were stories of music made not by instruments, but by the "thousand pipes of nature", huge trees too poor to be made into building material but more appropriate for providing shades, etc. I realised that if the natural order was for Zhuangzi to be eaten by a tree, he would probably be quite happy to accept it, as long as it was "in accordance with nature".😁
So from that point, I remember re-thinking about the ethics of vegetarianism : so we stop eating animals to reduce suffering, what about the plants? Do they not suffer? In fact, if an oxen was slaughtered by an artisan, Baoding, shouldn't their suffering be less than the lettuce leaves freshly picked from a plant and chewed up by some human?
Well I'm still a vegetarian haha 😂, but not for animal cruelty reasons...it's more that cattle farming is terrible for the environment, and I enjoy vegetables (especially freshly picked rocket leaves!!!!) more. 😂
Victoria, on plant's ability (or not!) of feeling things, stay tuned for a forthcoming article by yours truly in Skeptical Inquirer. I will post the link on Notes.
Haha! While I was reading the Cook Ding part, I thought, "I should suggest Jiro Dreams of Sushi to Massimo," and you beat me in the paragraph after!
Anyway, in my philosophical exploration, I always had a fascination for Daoism. I read both the Daodejing and the Zhuangzi twice and, using the fact that I studied for fun a bit of Chinese, I also looked at the (commented) original texts (in this regard, the Italian translation of the Daodejing by Augusto Sabbadini does a tremendous job in explaining character by character all the possible interpretations of the original text). Maybe because, in pure Asian-style philosophy, is very poetic and suggestive and it connects with something "deep."
But then "following the Dao" is pretty open to interpretation and, at the end of the day, my western brain needs more logic, rationality and practical "rules." So, here I am!
Davide, interesting about the translation by Sabbadini, thanks for mentioning it!
Yes, "follow the Dao" is one of those frustratingly vague things that made my logical-analytical western brain stay away from the eastern traditions. I can appreciate a lot in them, but not quite to the point of actually adopting them.
Thought provoking essay. I am a bit hung up on the butcher though. If I understand correctly, the butcher performs his craft well, but his craft itself is not virtuous, as the nature of the ox is not to be butchered. The conclusion seems to be that the use of animals is wrong, at least for food, so would it be necessary to be vegan to be virtuous? After all if it is wrong to butcher then isn’t it also wrong to be a downstream consumer of the activity?
Please don’t think I am being flippant, I often struggle with what my duty should be to animals so I’d be interested in your opinions. Thanks again
Usually, Daoist religious orders, like in Buddhism, promote vegetarianism to minimize harm to other sentient life.
Fun fact, a legend says that the inventor of tofu was Liu An, a prince and Daoist sage. :D (but he did it because his mother could not chew soybeans anymore, so it is not related to vegetarianism).
Andrew, that's a very good question, and I'm not an expert on Daoism. But yes, your conclusion seems to follow: if not veganism, at least vegetarianism.
The conceptual point, though, it's clear: there are two conceptually distinct aspects of virtue. One deals with the skill of carrying out certain tasks, the second with the proper choice of tasks.
I would suggest that the proper choice of tasks is made in accordance with nature - one of the Stoic Principles. This butcher is working in the kitchen of an important lord. It is appropriate to have a lot of good food served well. This is not a poor man's hovel.
The underlying attitude here is for a human to live in accordance with human society. Part of this attitude is one of contentment - "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
So the butcher is playing the appropriate part in his society. His main goal is not to overthrow the way things are done but to perform his tasks in the best way possible.
Compare this attitude to Chapter 80 of the Tao te Ching (Stephen Mitchell's version):
80
If a country is governed wisely,
its inhabitants will be content.
They enjoy the labor of their hands
and don't waste time inventing
labor-saving machines.
Since they dearly love their homes,
they aren't interested in travel.
There may be a few wagons and boats,
but these don't go anywhere.
There may be an arsenal of weapons,
but nobody ever uses them.
People enjoy their food,
take pleasure in being with their families,
spend weekends working in their gardens,
delight in the doings of the neighborhood.
And even though the next country is so close
that people can hear its roosters crowing and its dogs barking,
they are content to die of old age
without ever having gone to see it.
To address the point: "Now we can argue that their nature is not to be carved up for human consumption, so it turns out that Cook Ding is acting skillfully, but not ethically."
This has taken the ox out of context. This is not a wild animal. Oxen have been domesitcated for centuries. Like dogs, cats, chickens, bananas and corn, their nature has become that of serving human needs. So cooking and serving an ox is an ethical act.
This brings up a funny side-effect of vegetarianism: if we were all going to become vegetarians, the world's population of chickens wouuld crash. In terms of evolution, this type of human-animal-plant symbiosis is a very sucssessful reproductive strategy. The oxen, as a sub-species, been selected for the purpose of helping humans to farm and then serve as a meal. In return, the humans take care of them.
Now, evolution does not necessarily determine moral laws. But it is simplistic to presume that eating an ox is unethical. You could make a better case that killing it unkindly is unethical, or that an overpopulation of animals causing environmental stresses is unethical, but in the context of 200 BC at an official feast, Cook Ding is most certainly acting both skillfully and ethically.
Antony, I see your point, but the author of the paper I cite appears to disagree with your analysis, as he clearly states that the cook is acting unethically. I'm guessing his basis for saying so is that no animal wants to be eaten, though of course to be someone else's meal is the natural fate of a lot of animals.
Regarding the crashing chicken population, that is true, but I take it that a vegetarian would answer that that would be a one-time event to return things to a less artificial situation. After that there wouldn't be any more human-imposed suffering for chicken, in perpetuity. I'm not saying I agree with the argument, but this is one way the vegetarian could counter.
Finally, forgive me, but the country described in 80 sounds more than a bit boring and his inhabitants lacking in curiosity. I'm not sure I would be happy there.
Well, I would have to say that, in this case, the claim the author makes about the moral judgement of Cook Ding vis-a-vis the ox misinterprets Taoist philosophy.
Juxtapose these two paragraphs:
pg[1055]
However, such knowledge does not tell us what we should do to a particular
thing, which is related to the second sense of tian in the Zhuangzi: the natural
disposition of a thing. For example, the natural disposition of a seabird is “to
roost in a deep forest … wander over the plain, swim in a river or lake, feed
upon fish, and fly in formation with others” (Zhuangzi 18.621), and the natural
disposition of a horse is “to tread on frost and snow with their hoofs, to withstand
wind and cold with their hair, to feed on grasses and drink water, and to prance
with their legs” (Zhuangzi 9.330). In Zhuangzi’s view, whether our action toward
something is morally appropriate or not depends on whether our action follows
the tian li of the thing in this second sense.
pg[1059]
What is important is that we must treat others according to their natural ten-
dencies (yi hu tian li 依乎天理), follow their inherent nature (yin qi gu ran 因其固
然), and observe their inborn nature (guan tian xing 觀天性), with the term
“nature” (tian and xing) here understood in the second and not in the first
sense distinguished in the previous section. Thus understood, the natural ten-
dency, the inherent nature, or the inborn nature of oxen is obviously not to be
carved by a cook, that of trees is not to be cut by the carpenter, and that of a
cicada is not to be caught by the cicada catcher. In other words, from an
ethical perspective, Cook Ding’s action toward the ox, Carpenter Ziqing’s
action toward trees, and the cicada catcher’s action toward cicadas are wrong,
just as Shu and Hu’s action toward Hundun, the Marquis of Lu’s action toward
the seabird, and Bo Le’s action toward horses are wrong. So the Zhuangzian
ethics of difference, which asks us to esteem ways of life different from ours,
not only does not esteem but will condemn the type of despicable life.
The problem here is the use of the word "obviously" in the sentence: "the natural tendency, the inherent nature, or the inborn nature of oxen is obviously not to be carved by a cook."
For example, let's consider the concept of r/K selection theory:
I am using the concept in terms of the number of offspring that a species produces. A mouse has a large number of offspring, most of which are eaten by predators. A horse has a small number of offspring, most of which survive to adulthood.
A case can be made that the large litter of a mouse using an r-selection strategy implies that the inherent nature of a mouse is to have a large number of offspring, most of which end up being eaten.
In the case of the argument that Yong Huang makes in the paragraphs above, there is an assumed ("obvious") claim that the natural disposition of a wild horse is similar to that of a domesticated oxen in relation to the way that they interact with humans.
Consider the following: the natural disposition of the horse is to feed on grass. But, if the examples of the oxen, tree and cicada are to be believed, then the inborn nature of the grass is not to be eaten. I disagree with the author's analysis. I think a reasonable case can be made that part of the inborn nature of the grass is to be eaten by the horse. Similarly, the inborn nature of an apple is to be eaten, because this helps spread the seeds more than having the apple lie on the ground to rot. This is also true for acorns. The squirrels gather them, bury them, eat a bunch of them, and forget the rest. I think it is a reasonable argument that the inborn nature of a domesticated ox is to be eaten by a human. In return, the human provides the ox with food, shelter, and protection from predators.
So I stand by my claim.
As to how boring Chapter 80 is: I'm with you on that!
My personal view is that, if I were in that type of living arrangement, I am glad that I live less than a mile away from the Lahey Clinic in Burlington, MA, so that if I developed some major illness, I could hitch my uneaten ox to the cart and get myself to the emergency room.
This brings up a deeper issue: the ancient traditions are out of date. This is an issue that you are addressing with the ancient Stoic writings: which of them needs to be updated?
The wheelwright example is especially appropriate.
------
Duke Huan was reading a book at the top of the hall, wheelwright Bian was chipping a wheel at the bottom of the hall. He put aside his mallet and chisel and went up to ask Duke Huan:
May I ask what words my lord is reading?
The words of a sage.
Is the sage alive?
He’s dead.
In that case what my lord is reading is the dregs of the men of old, isn’t it?
What business is it of a wheelwright to criticize what I read? If you can explain yourself, well and good. If not, you die.
Speaking for myself, I see it in terms of my own work. If I chip at a wheel too slowly, the chisel slides and does not grip; if too fast, it jams and catches in the wood. Not too slow, not too fast; I feel it in the hand and respond from the heart, the mouth cannot put it into words, there is a knack in it somewhere which I cannot convey to my son and which my son cannot learn from me. That is how through my seventy years I have grown old chipping at wheels. The men of old and their untransmittable message are dead. Then what my lord is reading is the dregs of the men of old, isn’t it?
---
One of the reasons I consider myself a Taoist is that Taoism explicitly states that human texts take second place to personal experience:
Tao te Ching, Chapter 1 (Stephen Mitchell again)
The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.
This is why I ceased to be a Christian: not so much because I had a beef with Jesus or the possibility that a God exists, but because the Bible is considered to have some sort of spiritual truth that transcends other human-written texts. I don't buy it.
Individual, personal experience takes precedence over any writing.
Although they contain much wisdom, the ancient classics are out of date. They have their value, and we should respect them, but they should be treated the same way that a physicist reads Newton's Principia Mathematica, a computer scientist reads Turing's paper on computability, or a biologist reads Darwin's Origin of Species. This goes for philosophy and religion. Human knowledge is constantly expanding.
So I respectfully differ with some attitudes that were expressed by the ancient Taoist sages.
As far as I am concerned, the Taoist concept of Qi as a vital force was a reasonable theory way back when. But in this day and age, I would relegate it to pseudoscience.
So we start with the classics, but we add to them and we discard the errors.
In the case of the aforementioned Chapter 80, it is my opinion that the fundamental error here is that, two thousand years ago, time was considered static. Thererfore, them new-fangled ways of doing things were not to be trusted.
A fundamental concept in Taoism is that of cycles. The seasons change, the moon waxes and wanes, the tides come in and go out. The Tao Te Ching is full of references to cycles. The concept of cycles is also found in the I Ching.
Personally, I think that the concept of cycles is simplistic. I prefer the concept of a spiral. The Earth circles the Sun, but the Sun is also moving through the galaxy. The galaxy is moving through the universe. And so on.
This again brings up the question: what is timeless in the world, especially in terms of human nature? You and I differ on this. You maintain that there are timeless properties inherent in human nature. I think that human nature is constantly evolving. This applies to us chickens, too. Even setting aside the question of whether or not we should be vegetarians, the advent of lab-grown meat would also result in a major poultry population crash. That would certainly not return things to a less artificial state. Quite the contrary.
Artificiality is a fundamental property of being human. It is also a driving force that changes human nature, even down to the level of our fundamental nature. It is part of evolution, but it is self-directed and purposeful, not random.
Life is change
How it differs from the rocks
- Paul Kantner, Jefferson Airplane, Crown of Creation
Antony, you raise a lot of points, and it would take me a full post to comment on them. However, here are some considerations:
It doesn't seem to me that you disagree with the paper author's general idea, you disagree with his specific interpretation of a specific case. That's fair, and it can be hashed out without having to reject the general idea.
r/K selection is, obviously, a modern concept that the early Daoists were not aware of. It's one of a number of cases where ancient natural philosophy needs to be updated, as I'm doing with Stoicism and its concept of a living universe.
I'm still going to disagree, though, that it is in the nature of the grass to be grazed. Your other examples (the apple and the acorn) are on target, because natural selection designed those in order to be eaten. But not grass blades. Grazing is just an inevitable effect of co-existing with other animals, not something the grass "wants."
This is important because it highlights how difficult it actually is to interpret what is "in the nature" of a living organism.
It's interesting that you bring up examples like Newton's Principia and Darwin's Origins. Those are both works in natural philosophy, and I don't think too many people argued that the ancients got it right. (Indeed, even Newtown, and to some extent Darwin, are already known to have been partially wrong.)
What's most valuable in the ancient traditions is the ethics, and that one hasn't really changed that much. In fact, I think we've gotten worse at it with the Enlightenment turn to Kant and then Mill.
As for human nature, I don't think it's timeless. We are not the same as Homo erectus, and even less so than Australopithecus. But it changes very slowly, certainly not in the span of the two millennia or so that separate us from the beginning of the Greco-Roman or eastern wisdom traditions.
Both the Stoics and the Taoists share a somewhat similar attitude about death - it is part of nature and should not be denied. Compare the Stoic example of Seneca to a vignette in Zhuangzi:
I am quoting from:
https://thephilosophygarden.substack.com/p/how-to-die-with-seneca
https://thephilosophygarden.substack.com/p/recommended-books-e1a
How to die with Seneca
“Whatever existed before us was death. What does it matter whether you cease to be, or never begin? The outcome of either is just this, that you don’t exist.” (Epistle 114.27)
https://straightbamboo.com/death-of-zhuang-zis-wife/
Death of Zhuang Zi’s Wife
Zhuang Zi’s wife passed away, so his old friend Hui Zi came for a visit of condolence. When he arrived, he saw that Zhuang Zi was sitting on the ground, drumming a pot and singing a song. He did not seem to be grieving, and this seemed very inappropriate to Hui Zi.-
He said to Zhuang Zi: “What are you doing? Your wife has been there for you all those years, raising your children and building your family with you. Now she is gone, but you feel no sadness and shed no tears. You are actually drumming and singing! Isn’t this a bit much?”
“It’s not what it looks like my friend.” Zhuang Zi faced Hui Zi’s emotions. “Of course I was struck with grief when she passed on. How could I not be? But then, I realized that the life I thought she lost was actually not something she had originally. During all that time before her birth, she did not possess life, a physical form, or indeed anything at all. She ended up in exactly the same state, so she did not lose anything.”
---
Now considering the situation about the ox: "Now we can argue that their nature is not to be carved up for human consumption, so it turns out that Cook Ding is acting skillfully, but not ethically." As Huang says it: "the natural tendency, the inherent nature, or the inborn nature of oxen is obviously not to be carved by a cook, that of trees is not to be cut by the carpenter, and that of a cicada is not to be caught by the cicada catcher."
But Seneca has a different attitude, in that the means of death is a part of life:
"Seneca believed that life is only a journey toward death and that one must rehearse for death throughout life. Here, he tells us how to practice for death, how to die well, and how to understand the role of a good death in a good life."
What is missing is the notion of a "good death" in juding the ethics of Cook Ding. If we are all part of nature, then seen in the context of an acceptance of the reality of death, the inherent nature of the ox is to eventually die. Given that, a "good death" for the ox is one that is in accordance with its nature: that of a domesticated animal.
Antony, thanks for the parallelism between Seneca and Zhuang Zi. Impressive indeed, and goes once again to confirm the notion that ancient ethical intuitions are more similar across cultures than one might at first suspect. And, I would add, this similarity arises from the fact that all these people were thinking about the (universal, in my mind) human condition.
However, I'm still not convinced about the ox. Seneca can talk about a virtuous death because he is a human being who can consciously choose to think, and confront, death in a certain way. That option is not open to the ox.
The idea of what is "natural" for a domesticated animal is not straightforward. One could argue that there cannot be any such thing, because domestication is not itself natural. (Yes, I know, everything that humans do is also natural because we are part of nature, but you know what I mean, in this context.) I honestly don't know. Happy to leave that discussion to you and Yong Huang. As far as I'm concerned, I think Jeremy Bentham was right when he said that the crucial issue about treatment of animals (domestic or not) is suffering.
The crucial issue in the treatment of animals is their suffering. One can be cruel and impose needless suffering, or avoid cruelty by minimizing suffering. The wild oxen will die due to disease, starvation or predation from carnivorous animals- perhaps some combination of more than one of these, which would especially cause their suffering. The domesticated oxen will likely be fed, and cure of disease, before succumbing to human predation. While the domesticated oxen is not free to choose, neither is the wild oxen. For that matter, neither is the wild carnivore preying on the oxen free to choose how to take a life. But the human can choose to how to slay the oxen, to minimize or to revel in cruelty. For me, my choice also involves not wasting food; while the oxen no longer has exists, it is shameful to waste such a sacrifice.
I agree, the crucial ethical issue should be suffering, not death.
Wow and I just learned something new!!! So it's indeed cook Ding not Cook Pao in this case! Usually Chinese have their family name first, but in this case Pao(庖) actually means cook, and Ding(丁) is indeed his family name. Literally Cook Ding! 😅 I've been wrong all my life up this point!! I just to call him cook Bao, which is even more wrong!! Because I confused the character with the Japanese name for kitchen knife (包丁). 😂😂😂 this is way too many revelations in one day..🤦🏻♀️
😆
Haha 😂 I read that oxen story when I was 10 years old. I remember being a bit shocked, because up until that point, I thought Zhuangzi was a vegetarian. There were so many references of magnificent beasts in his stories that I felt he sure treated animals the same way as, even higher than, humans.
But I think since then I re-read a lot of Zhuangzi and realised that Taoism was more a process of understanding the natural order of things. There were stories of music made not by instruments, but by the "thousand pipes of nature", huge trees too poor to be made into building material but more appropriate for providing shades, etc. I realised that if the natural order was for Zhuangzi to be eaten by a tree, he would probably be quite happy to accept it, as long as it was "in accordance with nature".😁
So from that point, I remember re-thinking about the ethics of vegetarianism : so we stop eating animals to reduce suffering, what about the plants? Do they not suffer? In fact, if an oxen was slaughtered by an artisan, Baoding, shouldn't their suffering be less than the lettuce leaves freshly picked from a plant and chewed up by some human?
Well I'm still a vegetarian haha 😂, but not for animal cruelty reasons...it's more that cattle farming is terrible for the environment, and I enjoy vegetables (especially freshly picked rocket leaves!!!!) more. 😂
Victoria, on plant's ability (or not!) of feeling things, stay tuned for a forthcoming article by yours truly in Skeptical Inquirer. I will post the link on Notes.
Oh I look forward to that! ❤️ 🙂 i think you should call yourself a "skeptical biologist" here to increase impact! 💪
Haha! While I was reading the Cook Ding part, I thought, "I should suggest Jiro Dreams of Sushi to Massimo," and you beat me in the paragraph after!
Anyway, in my philosophical exploration, I always had a fascination for Daoism. I read both the Daodejing and the Zhuangzi twice and, using the fact that I studied for fun a bit of Chinese, I also looked at the (commented) original texts (in this regard, the Italian translation of the Daodejing by Augusto Sabbadini does a tremendous job in explaining character by character all the possible interpretations of the original text). Maybe because, in pure Asian-style philosophy, is very poetic and suggestive and it connects with something "deep."
But then "following the Dao" is pretty open to interpretation and, at the end of the day, my western brain needs more logic, rationality and practical "rules." So, here I am!
Davide, interesting about the translation by Sabbadini, thanks for mentioning it!
Yes, "follow the Dao" is one of those frustratingly vague things that made my logical-analytical western brain stay away from the eastern traditions. I can appreciate a lot in them, but not quite to the point of actually adopting them.
Thought provoking essay. I am a bit hung up on the butcher though. If I understand correctly, the butcher performs his craft well, but his craft itself is not virtuous, as the nature of the ox is not to be butchered. The conclusion seems to be that the use of animals is wrong, at least for food, so would it be necessary to be vegan to be virtuous? After all if it is wrong to butcher then isn’t it also wrong to be a downstream consumer of the activity?
Please don’t think I am being flippant, I often struggle with what my duty should be to animals so I’d be interested in your opinions. Thanks again
Usually, Daoist religious orders, like in Buddhism, promote vegetarianism to minimize harm to other sentient life.
Fun fact, a legend says that the inventor of tofu was Liu An, a prince and Daoist sage. :D (but he did it because his mother could not chew soybeans anymore, so it is not related to vegetarianism).
Cool story about the tofu.
Andrew, that's a very good question, and I'm not an expert on Daoism. But yes, your conclusion seems to follow: if not veganism, at least vegetarianism.
The conceptual point, though, it's clear: there are two conceptually distinct aspects of virtue. One deals with the skill of carrying out certain tasks, the second with the proper choice of tasks.
I would suggest that the proper choice of tasks is made in accordance with nature - one of the Stoic Principles. This butcher is working in the kitchen of an important lord. It is appropriate to have a lot of good food served well. This is not a poor man's hovel.
The underlying attitude here is for a human to live in accordance with human society. Part of this attitude is one of contentment - "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
So the butcher is playing the appropriate part in his society. His main goal is not to overthrow the way things are done but to perform his tasks in the best way possible.
Compare this attitude to Chapter 80 of the Tao te Ching (Stephen Mitchell's version):
80
If a country is governed wisely,
its inhabitants will be content.
They enjoy the labor of their hands
and don't waste time inventing
labor-saving machines.
Since they dearly love their homes,
they aren't interested in travel.
There may be a few wagons and boats,
but these don't go anywhere.
There may be an arsenal of weapons,
but nobody ever uses them.
People enjoy their food,
take pleasure in being with their families,
spend weekends working in their gardens,
delight in the doings of the neighborhood.
And even though the next country is so close
that people can hear its roosters crowing and its dogs barking,
they are content to die of old age
without ever having gone to see it.
To address the point: "Now we can argue that their nature is not to be carved up for human consumption, so it turns out that Cook Ding is acting skillfully, but not ethically."
This has taken the ox out of context. This is not a wild animal. Oxen have been domesitcated for centuries. Like dogs, cats, chickens, bananas and corn, their nature has become that of serving human needs. So cooking and serving an ox is an ethical act.
This brings up a funny side-effect of vegetarianism: if we were all going to become vegetarians, the world's population of chickens wouuld crash. In terms of evolution, this type of human-animal-plant symbiosis is a very sucssessful reproductive strategy. The oxen, as a sub-species, been selected for the purpose of helping humans to farm and then serve as a meal. In return, the humans take care of them.
Now, evolution does not necessarily determine moral laws. But it is simplistic to presume that eating an ox is unethical. You could make a better case that killing it unkindly is unethical, or that an overpopulation of animals causing environmental stresses is unethical, but in the context of 200 BC at an official feast, Cook Ding is most certainly acting both skillfully and ethically.
Antony, I see your point, but the author of the paper I cite appears to disagree with your analysis, as he clearly states that the cook is acting unethically. I'm guessing his basis for saying so is that no animal wants to be eaten, though of course to be someone else's meal is the natural fate of a lot of animals.
Regarding the crashing chicken population, that is true, but I take it that a vegetarian would answer that that would be a one-time event to return things to a less artificial situation. After that there wouldn't be any more human-imposed suffering for chicken, in perpetuity. I'm not saying I agree with the argument, but this is one way the vegetarian could counter.
Finally, forgive me, but the country described in 80 sounds more than a bit boring and his inhabitants lacking in curiosity. I'm not sure I would be happy there.
Well, I would have to say that, in this case, the claim the author makes about the moral judgement of Cook Ding vis-a-vis the ox misinterprets Taoist philosophy.
Juxtapose these two paragraphs:
pg[1055]
However, such knowledge does not tell us what we should do to a particular
thing, which is related to the second sense of tian in the Zhuangzi: the natural
disposition of a thing. For example, the natural disposition of a seabird is “to
roost in a deep forest … wander over the plain, swim in a river or lake, feed
upon fish, and fly in formation with others” (Zhuangzi 18.621), and the natural
disposition of a horse is “to tread on frost and snow with their hoofs, to withstand
wind and cold with their hair, to feed on grasses and drink water, and to prance
with their legs” (Zhuangzi 9.330). In Zhuangzi’s view, whether our action toward
something is morally appropriate or not depends on whether our action follows
the tian li of the thing in this second sense.
pg[1059]
What is important is that we must treat others according to their natural ten-
dencies (yi hu tian li 依乎天理), follow their inherent nature (yin qi gu ran 因其固
然), and observe their inborn nature (guan tian xing 觀天性), with the term
“nature” (tian and xing) here understood in the second and not in the first
sense distinguished in the previous section. Thus understood, the natural ten-
dency, the inherent nature, or the inborn nature of oxen is obviously not to be
carved by a cook, that of trees is not to be cut by the carpenter, and that of a
cicada is not to be caught by the cicada catcher. In other words, from an
ethical perspective, Cook Ding’s action toward the ox, Carpenter Ziqing’s
action toward trees, and the cicada catcher’s action toward cicadas are wrong,
just as Shu and Hu’s action toward Hundun, the Marquis of Lu’s action toward
the seabird, and Bo Le’s action toward horses are wrong. So the Zhuangzian
ethics of difference, which asks us to esteem ways of life different from ours,
not only does not esteem but will condemn the type of despicable life.
The problem here is the use of the word "obviously" in the sentence: "the natural tendency, the inherent nature, or the inborn nature of oxen is obviously not to be carved by a cook."
For example, let's consider the concept of r/K selection theory:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory
I am using the concept in terms of the number of offspring that a species produces. A mouse has a large number of offspring, most of which are eaten by predators. A horse has a small number of offspring, most of which survive to adulthood.
A case can be made that the large litter of a mouse using an r-selection strategy implies that the inherent nature of a mouse is to have a large number of offspring, most of which end up being eaten.
In the case of the argument that Yong Huang makes in the paragraphs above, there is an assumed ("obvious") claim that the natural disposition of a wild horse is similar to that of a domesticated oxen in relation to the way that they interact with humans.
Consider the following: the natural disposition of the horse is to feed on grass. But, if the examples of the oxen, tree and cicada are to be believed, then the inborn nature of the grass is not to be eaten. I disagree with the author's analysis. I think a reasonable case can be made that part of the inborn nature of the grass is to be eaten by the horse. Similarly, the inborn nature of an apple is to be eaten, because this helps spread the seeds more than having the apple lie on the ground to rot. This is also true for acorns. The squirrels gather them, bury them, eat a bunch of them, and forget the rest. I think it is a reasonable argument that the inborn nature of a domesticated ox is to be eaten by a human. In return, the human provides the ox with food, shelter, and protection from predators.
So I stand by my claim.
As to how boring Chapter 80 is: I'm with you on that!
My personal view is that, if I were in that type of living arrangement, I am glad that I live less than a mile away from the Lahey Clinic in Burlington, MA, so that if I developed some major illness, I could hitch my uneaten ox to the cart and get myself to the emergency room.
This brings up a deeper issue: the ancient traditions are out of date. This is an issue that you are addressing with the ancient Stoic writings: which of them needs to be updated?
The wheelwright example is especially appropriate.
------
Duke Huan was reading a book at the top of the hall, wheelwright Bian was chipping a wheel at the bottom of the hall. He put aside his mallet and chisel and went up to ask Duke Huan:
May I ask what words my lord is reading?
The words of a sage.
Is the sage alive?
He’s dead.
In that case what my lord is reading is the dregs of the men of old, isn’t it?
What business is it of a wheelwright to criticize what I read? If you can explain yourself, well and good. If not, you die.
Speaking for myself, I see it in terms of my own work. If I chip at a wheel too slowly, the chisel slides and does not grip; if too fast, it jams and catches in the wood. Not too slow, not too fast; I feel it in the hand and respond from the heart, the mouth cannot put it into words, there is a knack in it somewhere which I cannot convey to my son and which my son cannot learn from me. That is how through my seventy years I have grown old chipping at wheels. The men of old and their untransmittable message are dead. Then what my lord is reading is the dregs of the men of old, isn’t it?
---
One of the reasons I consider myself a Taoist is that Taoism explicitly states that human texts take second place to personal experience:
Tao te Ching, Chapter 1 (Stephen Mitchell again)
The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.
This is why I ceased to be a Christian: not so much because I had a beef with Jesus or the possibility that a God exists, but because the Bible is considered to have some sort of spiritual truth that transcends other human-written texts. I don't buy it.
Individual, personal experience takes precedence over any writing.
Although they contain much wisdom, the ancient classics are out of date. They have their value, and we should respect them, but they should be treated the same way that a physicist reads Newton's Principia Mathematica, a computer scientist reads Turing's paper on computability, or a biologist reads Darwin's Origin of Species. This goes for philosophy and religion. Human knowledge is constantly expanding.
So I respectfully differ with some attitudes that were expressed by the ancient Taoist sages.
As far as I am concerned, the Taoist concept of Qi as a vital force was a reasonable theory way back when. But in this day and age, I would relegate it to pseudoscience.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi
So we start with the classics, but we add to them and we discard the errors.
In the case of the aforementioned Chapter 80, it is my opinion that the fundamental error here is that, two thousand years ago, time was considered static. Thererfore, them new-fangled ways of doing things were not to be trusted.
A fundamental concept in Taoism is that of cycles. The seasons change, the moon waxes and wanes, the tides come in and go out. The Tao Te Ching is full of references to cycles. The concept of cycles is also found in the I Ching.
Personally, I think that the concept of cycles is simplistic. I prefer the concept of a spiral. The Earth circles the Sun, but the Sun is also moving through the galaxy. The galaxy is moving through the universe. And so on.
This again brings up the question: what is timeless in the world, especially in terms of human nature? You and I differ on this. You maintain that there are timeless properties inherent in human nature. I think that human nature is constantly evolving. This applies to us chickens, too. Even setting aside the question of whether or not we should be vegetarians, the advent of lab-grown meat would also result in a major poultry population crash. That would certainly not return things to a less artificial state. Quite the contrary.
Artificiality is a fundamental property of being human. It is also a driving force that changes human nature, even down to the level of our fundamental nature. It is part of evolution, but it is self-directed and purposeful, not random.
Life is change
How it differs from the rocks
- Paul Kantner, Jefferson Airplane, Crown of Creation
Antony, you raise a lot of points, and it would take me a full post to comment on them. However, here are some considerations:
It doesn't seem to me that you disagree with the paper author's general idea, you disagree with his specific interpretation of a specific case. That's fair, and it can be hashed out without having to reject the general idea.
r/K selection is, obviously, a modern concept that the early Daoists were not aware of. It's one of a number of cases where ancient natural philosophy needs to be updated, as I'm doing with Stoicism and its concept of a living universe.
I'm still going to disagree, though, that it is in the nature of the grass to be grazed. Your other examples (the apple and the acorn) are on target, because natural selection designed those in order to be eaten. But not grass blades. Grazing is just an inevitable effect of co-existing with other animals, not something the grass "wants."
This is important because it highlights how difficult it actually is to interpret what is "in the nature" of a living organism.
It's interesting that you bring up examples like Newton's Principia and Darwin's Origins. Those are both works in natural philosophy, and I don't think too many people argued that the ancients got it right. (Indeed, even Newtown, and to some extent Darwin, are already known to have been partially wrong.)
What's most valuable in the ancient traditions is the ethics, and that one hasn't really changed that much. In fact, I think we've gotten worse at it with the Enlightenment turn to Kant and then Mill.
As for human nature, I don't think it's timeless. We are not the same as Homo erectus, and even less so than Australopithecus. But it changes very slowly, certainly not in the span of the two millennia or so that separate us from the beginning of the Greco-Roman or eastern wisdom traditions.