Quotessence
Home / Topics / Ahimsa Quotes

Ahimsa Quotes

Browse 138 quotes about Ahimsa.

Related topics

Ahimsa Quotes

“We should always be clear that animal exploitation is wrong because it involves speciesism. And speciesism is wrong because, like racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-semitism, classism, and all other forms of human discrimination, speciesism involves violence inflicted on members of the moral community where that infliction of violence cannot be morally justified. But that means that those of us who oppose speciesism necessarily oppose discrimination against humans. It makes no sense to say that speciesism is wrong because it is like racism (or any other form of discrimination) but that we do not have a position about racism. We do. We should be opposed to it and we should always be clear about that.”

“I am opposed to animal welfare campaigns for two reasons. First, if animal use cannot be morally justified, then we ought to be clear about that, and advocate for no use. Although rape and child molestation are ubiquitous, we do not have campaigns for “humane” rape or “humane” child molestation. We condemn it all. We should do the same with respect to animal exploitation. Second, animal welfare reform does not provide significant protection for animal interests. Animals are chattel property; they are economic commodities. Given this status and the reality of markets, the level of protection provided by animal welfare will generally be limited to what promotes efficient exploitation. That is, we will protect animal interests to the extent that it provides an economic benefit.”

“Animals are property. There are laws that supposedly protect animal interests in being treated “humanely,” but that term is interpreted in large part to mean that we cannot impose “unnecessary” harm on animals, and that is measured by what treatment is considered as necessary within particular industries, and according to customs of use, to exploit animals. The bottom line is that animals do not have any respect-based rights in the way that humans have, because we do not regard animals as having any moral value. They have only economic value. We value their interests economically, and we ignore their interests when it is economically beneficial for us to do so. At this point in time, it makes no sense to focus on the law, because as long as we regard animals as things, as a moral matter, the laws will necessarily reflect that absence of moral value and continue to do nothing to protect animals. We need to change social and moral thinking about animals before the law is going to do anything more.”

“I reject animal welfare reform and single-issue campaigns because they are not only inconsistent with the claims of justice that we should be making if we really believe that animal exploitation is wrong, but because these approaches cannot work as a practical matter. Animals are property and it costs money to protect their interests; therefore, the level of protection accorded to animal interests will always be low and animals will, under the best of circumstances, still be treated in ways that would constitute torture if applied to humans. By endorsing welfare reforms that supposedly make exploitation more “compassionate” or single-issue campaigns that falsely suggest that there is a coherent moral distinction between meat and dairy or between fur and wool or between steak and foie gras, we betray the principle of justice that says that all sentient beings are equal for purposes of not being used exclusively as human resources. And, on a practical level, we do nothing more than make people feel better about animal exploitation.”

“The rights paradigm, which, as I interpret it, morally requires the abolition of animal exploitation and requires veganism as a matter of fundamental justice, is radically different from the welfarist paradigm, which, in theory focuses on reducing suffering, and, in reality, focuses on tidying up animal exploitation at its economically inefficient edges. In science, those who subscribe to one paradigm are often unable to understand and engage those who subscribe to another paradigm precisely because the theoretical language that they use is not compatible. I think that the situation is similar in the context of the debate between animal rights and animal welfare. And that is why welfarists simply cannot understand or accept the slavery analogy.”

“The notion that we should promote “happy” or “humane” exploitation as “baby steps” ignores that welfare reforms do not result in providing significantly greater protection for animal interests; in fact, most of the time, animal welfare reforms do nothing more than make animal exploitation more economically productive by focusing on practices, such as gestation crates, the electrical stunning of chickens, or veal crates, that are economically inefficient in any event. Welfare reforms make animal exploitation more profitable by eliminating practices that are economically vulnerable. For the most part, those changes would happen anyway and in the absence of animal welfare campaigns precisely because they do rectify inefficiencies in the production process. And welfare reforms make the public more comfortable about animal exploitation. The “happy” meat/animal products movement is clear proof of that. We would never advocate for “humane” or "happy” human slavery, rape, genocide, etc. So, if we believe that animals matter morally and that they have an interest not only in not suffering but in continuing to exist, we should not be putting our time and energy into advocating for “humane” or “happy” animal exploitation.”

“If we take the position that an assessment that veganism is morally preferable to vegetarianism is not possible because we are all “on our own journey,” then moral assessment becomes completely impossible or is speciesist. It is impossible because if we are all “on our own journey,” then there is nothing to say to the racist, sexist, anti-semite, homophobe, etc. If we say that those forms of discrimination are morally bad, but, with respect to animals, we are all “on our own journey” and we cannot make moral assessments about, for instance, dairy consumption, then we are simply being speciesist and not applying the same moral analysis to nonhumans that we apply to the human context.”

“If we are ever going to see a paradigm shift, we have to be clear about how we want the present paradigm to shift. We must be clear that veganism is the unequivocal baseline of anything that deserves to be called an “animal rights” movement. If “animal rights” means anything, it means that we cannot morally justify any animal exploitation; we cannot justify creating animals as human resources, however “humane” that treatment may be. We must stop thinking that people will find veganism “daunting” and that we have to promote something less than veganism. If we explain the moral ideas and the arguments in favor of veganism clearly, people will understand. They may not all go vegan immediately; in fact, most won’t. But we should always be clear about the moral baseline. If someone wants to do less as an incremental matter, let that be her/his decision, and not something that we advise to do. The baseline should always be clear. We should never be promoting “happy” or “humane” exploitation as morally acceptable.”

“There are some animal advocates who say that to maintain that veganism is the moral baseline is objectionable because it is “judgmental,” or constitutes a judgment that veganism is morally preferable to vegetarianism and a condemnation that vegetarians (or other consumers of animal products) are “bad” people. Yes to the first part; no to the second. There is no coherent distinction between flesh and other animal products. They are all the same and we cannot justify consuming any of them. To say that you do not eat flesh but that you eat dairy or eggs or whatever, or that you don’t wear fur but you wear leather or wool, is like saying that you eat the meat from spotted cows but not from brown cows; it makers no sense whatsoever. The supposed “line” between meat and everything else is just a fantasy–an arbitrary distinction that is made to enable some exploitation to be segmented off and regarded as “better” or as morally acceptable. This is not a condemnation of vegetarians who are not vegans; it is, however, a plea to those people to recognize their actions do not conform with a moral principle that they claim to accept and that all animal products are the result of imposing suffering and death on sentient beings. It is not a matter of judging individuals; it is, however, a matter of judging practices and institutions. And that is a necessary component of ethical living.”

“An abolitionist is, as I have developed that notion, one who (1) maintains that we cannot justify animal use, however “humane” it may be; (2) rejects welfare campaigns that seek more “humane” exploitation, or single-issue campaigns that seek to portray one form of animal exploitation as morally worse than other forms of animal exploitation (e.g., a campaign that seeks to distinguish fur from wool or leather); and (3) regards veganism, or the complete rejection of the consumption or use of any animal products, as a moral baseline. An abolitionist regards creative, nonviolent vegan education as the primary form of activism, because she understands that the paradigm will not shift until we address demand and educate people to stop thinking of animals as things we eat, wear, or use as our resources.”

“Although there are tremendous differences in the particular expressions of any one branch within each religion, core teachings tend to remain central to all branches of a given religion—each branch generally shares the same core texts, teachings, saints, and/or founders. For example, love is a core value among the many Christian traditions, ahimsa is central to each Hindu tradition, zakat is obligatory in all Muslim traditions, and the list goes on.”

“Dear men, I’ll make it clear to you. Those who tell you that ‘true love’ is never giving up someone you are in love with are insecure and competitive. Their description on love is based on their needs. Selfish needs. While women who are confident, their spirits fulfilled by themselves know that a 'good bye’ doesn’t mean they never loved you. They realizes that letting you go is what God needs them to do, because both happiness: yours and your lover require taking different journey for spiritual growth. These kind of women show you what 'real love’ is. And you don’t want to catch them still? Win a battle for them? Even after what you have learnt? For God’s sake, these women have endured much. For battles she fight alone, they deserve LOVE.”

“Trust the process of Life. There is a lot of action when you are trusting the process. It is a present continuous state of non-resistance. It involves doing whatever you can do in a given context and allowing yourself to be led by Life. You will then witness the magic and beauty of Life leading you to where you must arrive.”

“Ahimsa is as relevant today, particularly to our inner well-being, as it was to Gandhi or during his time. Ahimsa is not about non-violent action. It is about non-violent thought in the first place. A lot of the negativity in us comes from how much anger we are carrying in us – for the people and situations around us. Just stopping to curse errant people on the street is a good starting point to embracing ahimsa. Practice it. It works big time!”

“Violent thought affects your inner peace and Happiness more than you can ever imagine. When you are on the street and you use an expletive to yell at an errant road user, that is violent thought. This tendency to think ill of someone, even if you have been provoked or wronged, has to cease. This is the ahimsa that Gandhi talked about. It wasn’t just about violent action being given up, it was also about violent thought ceasing. When you train your mind to be non-violent in thought, and of course action, that is when you will discover that you are the Happiness that you seek!”

“Banyak yang berpikir baBanyak yang berpikir bahwa ahimsa adalah pasifisme mutlak, bahwa India adalah bangsa penakut dan penurut yang akan bertekuk lutut kepada siapa pun. Namun, dalam Bhagawad Gita, ada pengecualian untuk dharma yuddha. Perang yang dibenarkan. Perang ketika kekerasan digunakan seba- gai pilihan terakhir. Perang yang tidak memperjuangkan keuntungan atau motif-motif pribadi, tetapi berangkat dari komitmen terhadap cita-cita yang lebih luhur.hwa ahimsa adalah pasifisme mutlak, bahwa India adalah bangsa penakut dan penurut yang akan bertekuk lutut kepada siapa pun. Namun, dalam Bhagawad Gita, ada pengecualian untuk dharma yuddha. Perang yang dibenarkan. Perang ketika kekerasan digunakan sebagai pilihan terakhir. Perang yang tidak memperjuangkan keuntungan atau motif-motif pribadi, tetapi berangkat dari komitmen terhadap cita-cita yang lebih luhur.”

“Banyak yang berpikir bahwa ahimsa adalah pasifisme mutlak, bahwa India adalah bangsa penakut dan penurut yang akan bertekuk lutut kepada siapa pun. Namun, dalam Bhagawad Gita, ada pengecualian untuk dharma yuddha. Perang yang dibenarkan. Perang ketika kekerasan digunakan sebagai pilihan terakhir. Perang yang tidak memperjuangkan keuntungan atau motif-motif pribadi, tetapi berangkat dari komitmen terhadap cita-cita yang lebih luhur.hwa ahimsa adalah pasifisme mutlak, bahwa India adalah bangsa penakut dan penurut yang akan bertekuk lutut kepada siapa pun. Namun, dalam Bhagawad Gita, ada pengecualian untuk dharma yuddha. Perang yang dibenarkan. Perang ketika kekerasan digunakan seba- gai pilihan terakhir. Perang yang tidak memperjuangkan keuntungan atau motif-motif pribadi, tetapi berangkat dari komitmen terhadap cita-cita yang lebih luhur.”

“Banyak yang berpikir bahwa ahimsa adalah pasifisme mutlak, bahwa India adalah bangsa penakut dan penurut yang akan bertekuk lutut kepada siapa pun. Namun, dalam Bhagawad Gita, ada pengecualian untuk dharma yuddha. Perang yang dibenarkan. Perang ketika kekerasan digunakan sebagai pilihan terakhir. Perang yang tidak memperjuangkan keuntungan atau motif-motif pribadi, tetapi berangkat dari komitmen terhadap cita-cita yang lebih luhur.”

“We should not be surprised that more and more people feel comfortable about consuming animal products. After all, they are being assured by the “experts” that suffering is being decreased and they can buy “happy” meat, “free-range” eggs, etc.. These products even come with labels approved of by animal organizations. The animal welfare movement is actually encouraging the “compassionate” consumption of animal products. Animal welfare reforms do very little to increase the protection given to animal interests because of the economics involved: animals are property. They are things that have no intrinsic or moral value. This means that welfare standards, whether for animals used as foods, in experiments, or for any other purpose, will be low and linked to the level of welfare needed to exploit the animal in an economically efficient way for the particular purpose. Put simply, we generally protect animal interests only to the extent we get an economic benefit from doing so. The concept of “unnecessary” suffering is understood as that level of suffering that will frustrate the particular use. And that can be a great deal of suffering. Killing Animals and Making Animals Suffer | Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach”

“I know that I have still before me a difficult path to traverse. I must reduce myself to zero. So long as a man does not of his own free will put himself last among his fellow creatures, there is no salvation for him. Ahimsa is the farthest limit of humility.”