To Be a An Authentic Veg, Eat Non-Veg!

Ethical vegans make a concerted lifestyle choice based on ethical – rather than, say, dietary – concerns. But what are the ethical concerns that lead them to practise veganism? In this essay, I focus exclusively on that significant portion of vegans who believe consuming foods that contain animal products to be wrong because they care about harm to animals, perhaps insofar as they have rights, perhaps just because they are sentient beings who can suffer, or perhaps for some other reason. 

Throughout the essay, I take this conviction as a given, that is, I do not evaluate it, but instead investigate what lifestyle is in fact consistent with caring about harm to animals, which I will begin by calling consistent veganism. I argue that the lifestyle that consistently follows from this underlying conviction behind many people’s veganism is in fact distinct from a vegan lifestyle.

Let us also begin by interpreting veganism in the way that many vegans – and most who are aware of veganism – would. A vegan consumes a diet containing no animal products. In conceiving of veganism in terms of what a diet contains, there seems to be an intuition about the moral relevance of directness, according to which it matters how direct the harm caused by the consumption of the food is with regards to the consumption of the food.

On this intuition, eating a piece of meat is worse than eating a certain amount of apples grown with pesticides that causes the same amount of harm, because the harm in the first case seems to be more directly related to the consumption of the food than in the second case. Harm from the pesticides seems to be a side-effect of eating the food, whereas the death of the animal for meat seems to be a means to the eating food... To continue go here. 

(This is an article by Xavier Cohen, an undergraduate student from Oxford University. This paper was originally published by the Journal of Practial Ethics, where it was awarded the Uehiro Prize in Practical Ethics for an undergraduate essay. ) 

Was Rohith Vemula Being Anti-National?

Rohith Vemula committed suicide after disciplinary action was taken by the University authority. His death has  triggered a fresh row of debate about the status of Dalits in India; Rohith being from Dalit background. The controversy has its genesis because of a quarrel the students group he was affiliated to had with another students group. Rohith was part of a students group of the Dalits and the other group these students quarreled with was the right wing Hindu group, ABVP, the students wing of BJP. It has been reported that Rohith was labelled 'anti-national' by people in ABVP after he and his friends protested against the hanging of Yakub Memon, the person responsible for the bombing of Mumbai.

Whether the quarrel has anything to do with Dalit vs. Anti-Dalit or whether the extreme step was taken due to external pressure and blame must be shouldered by those putting the pressure, I am not going to touch on those matters. Much has been already said. I want to examine whether the protest against Yakub's hanging was an anti-national activity or not.

I think it is beyond reasonable doubt that Yakub was indeed involved in Bombay bombing. When he was hanged last year, there was protest from different quarter, including Rohith and friends apparently. There was no denial that there was a protest. But why were they protesting against the hanging of a criminal, whose criminal activity led to the death of 257 people besides wounding many?

Was the protest trying to say (1) that Yakub is innocent and he is not responsible for the bombing and so he should not be hanged. (2) that Yakub should not be hanged though other people who would have done similar bombing should be hanged -- because Yakub is Yakub, and no one else, he should be spared. (3) that Yakub should not be hanged because hanging in general is to be done away with; he should just be kept in prison as it has been done till then.

No. 1 is not on the table... because he was guilty. I don't think Rohith and others were saying that Yakub was innocent. No. 2 is unreasonable... because Yakub alone being spared when others would face the rope is unfair. Why should Yakub be given special treatment? Was Rohith and his friends saying that Yakub and Yakub alone should be spared and other similar criminal activities deserve hanging? May be; may not be. How about no. 3? There were people who argued this way. It is possible that Rohith and friend were also saying this thing. The chance of this message being communicated through their protest was higher than other messages being community.

But if this no 3 was what they meant through their protest, was it an anti-national activity? I do not see how this would amount to an anti-national activity. Suppose they were saying for no. 2, would it mean that their protest was an anti-national activity? I would still say their protest was not an anti-national activity though I would say their protest was unreasonable and unfair. I would thus conclude that it was unfair for those in the ABVP camp to label Rohith as anti-national.

Same Sex Marriage, Bible and N T Wright

Paul writes "... God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion" ( Rom 1: 26-27, NIV) 

Did Paul mean the kind of same sex relations where there was no commitment for life long relationship or was Paul making a sweeping generalisation about same sex sexual relations as such? Was Paul leaving a room for same sex life long marriage while saying that same sex relations without life long commitment was unnatural and therefore wrong? 

Well, I think Paul was making a sweeping generalisation about all kinds of same sex sexual relations as such as Wright rightly explains the general narrative running through the Scripture. 

Delhi's Odd-Even Policy is About Right to Clean Air!

I have been living in Delhi for almost two decades now. And so I call Delhi my home. And naturally I share with Delhi's achievement. shame and hurt. It has not been difficult to identify myself with Delhi because Delhi does not really 'belong' to anyone as it is so with other cities. Mumbai belongs to the Marathis, so to speak; and Kolkata to the Bengalis; and Chennai to the Tamilians. However, Delhi does not have any particular group of people who 'exclusively' own it; anyone who settles down can call it home. That is the plus point of Delhi. 

Prior to 2000, the quality of air was bad. There were so many private buses (in blue colour) that were not very commuters friendly. They made traffic system chaotic and were the worst polluters. Eventually they got phased. CNG run buses were then introduced. Yet they were not there in great numbers and getting CNG itself was a big hassle. Unlike today there were no air-conditioned buses;fly-overs were not that many. Thanks to Shiela Dikshit government. Metro train came to rescue Delhi traffic system. Traveling time was reduced and people could avoid travelling in over crowded Delhi buses, which was particularly very annoying during summer. 

With economic condition getting better, more cars have been added to Delhi's road each day. Whether the air quality was getting worse primarily because more cars are on the road each day or whether it was due to something else, there has definitely been the need to do something about the air quality in the city. Given the deteriorating condition, the government policy to introduce odd-even formula is a very good news. As a citizen of Delhi, this policy does cause inconvenience. I cannot just take my car anywhere any day I want. For example, the other day my wife, my two children and I got seated in the car to go somewhere in the evening. As I started the engine, it struck me suddenly that my odd numbered car was not supposed to be driven that day. So we dropped the idea and came back into the house. It was difficult trying to explain to the little children why we dropped the idea specially when they were looking forward for a ride. Office goers too have to carpool or use public transport system or use two-wheeler. 

But the traffic on the road is how comparatively less congested than other days. The volume of vehicle on the road has drastically come down. How effective is this scheme in curbing pollution is to be seen. Yet I think the inconvenience is worth given that travel time has now come down. People are now more serious about the harmful effect of breathing bad air. This odd-even scheme may not achieve so much in improving the air quality. But it is still an effort worth reinforcing. with other schemes. To that end, more trees should be planted. People should avoid buying SUVs unless it is need driven. I seriously wonder how many people buy SUVs in Delhi out of need. I can understand if one is living in hilly terrain! Using public transport system should be encouraged. Purchasing big cars or additional car as a status symbol must be avoided. If all these different ideas are taken together, it will be like drops of water in a mug; and they can effectively address the issue of air quality in the city. 

Someone filed a case in the Court saying that odd-even scheme violates his right to drive his cars. In a way it does. But the children of this same person also have the right to breathe clean air and so do my children. And when rights come into conflict this way, one must see which right should take precedence. And in this situation, I believe the right to breathe clean air must take precedence over the right to drive around one's car everyday. Dragging the government to the Court over this odd-even policy is thus a bogus action.