Killing animals (Lectures, Philosophy Discussions)

Expressions researched:
"animal" |"animals" |"kill" |"killed" |"killing" |"kills"

Notes from the compiler: VedaBase query: "kill* animal*"@5

Philosophy Discussions

Philosophy Discussion on Immanuel Kant:

Prabhupāda: So one man is thinking that animal killing is good, and another man is thinking animal killing is immorality. Then who is correct? Unless you know morality means this—it is coming from authority—that you have to follow it, otherwise you will be punished, then morality. Otherwise, if there is no background of forcing, that morality can be degraded into immorality at any moment.

Philosophy Discussion on Hegel:

Śyāmasundara: I guess that's a good place to stop for today. We'll try to finish Hegel tomorrow. (break) 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.

Prabhupāda: Yes. So what is the philosophy of killing animals?

Śyāmasundara: Well, animals are considered as things and persons have the dominion over things.

Prabhupāda: Therefore they are rascals. Rascal philosophy. So the basic principle is this, one has right to be.

Śyāmasundara: One has the right to be a person.

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Śyāmasundara: And respect others as persons.

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.

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.

Prabhupāda: Yes. But it is not crime to kill an animal? The animal has no right to live independently?

Śyāmasundara: They say that the standard of what is right is the universal or the rational will...

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

Śyāmasundara: Their idea is that the animal is not in the same category as myself because it has no...

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.

Śyāmasundara: The animal cannot understand philosophy.

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.

Philosophy Discussion on Hegel:

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.

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.

Śyāmasundara: He uses the example of someone who doesn't want anyone to steal something from him but he steals something from others.

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Śyāmasundara: And that is self-contradictory.

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.

Śyāmasundara: He would say a self-contradictory act is irrational.

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Śyāmasundara: Is not acting according to the rational will.

Prabhupāda: He is irrational and he is taking the position of a philosopher.

Philosophy Discussion on Hegel:

Śyāmasundara: Another one of his ideas is that conflict creates progress. So that a man kills the animal and progresses.

Prabhupāda: Then I kill him and make progress?

Śyāmasundara: Yes, that is the law of nature.

Prabhupāda: Then kill him and make progress?

Śyāmasundara: He says that acting in accordance with a conscience is the right type of activity.

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.

Philosophy Discussion on Hegel:

Śyāmasundara: He says that punishment for crime is justified because it vindicates justice and restores rights.

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."

Philosophy Discussion on Hegel:

Śyāmasundara: I observe in nature that everything is killing something else for eating so it seems only rational that I should be able to eat animals.

Prabhupāda: Well, that also accepted in the Vedic philosophy, jīvo jīvasya jīvanam. One life is, one living being is food for another living being. But that does not mean that you shall kill your son and eat, and it will be supported by the society. That is discrimination, that is conscience. You can say that "I must eat some, another living entity. That is by nature's law. So I produce my children and I kill them and I eat them so that the population problem will be solved." You can say that. Will you be accepted? So therefore there must be discrimination. That you have to eat another living being, that is nature's law, but if you eat fruit, you don't kill the tree. You take the fruit. If you eat vegetables, you take, still it is growing, and that is a factually not killing. But if you eat animals, you are killing. Actually he is being dead. So things should be done intelligently so that... The word is to make the best use of a bad bargain. So our philosophy is that although you can take that, although it is not killing, it is taking fruits, flowers and vegetables, it is taking from him, it is not killing, and we are offering to Kṛṣṇa and so if there is any responsibility, it is Kṛṣṇa's responsibility. We take the prasāda. Therefore we have no such responsibility and that is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā, bhuñjate te tv agham pāpā ye pacanty ātma-kāraṇāt (BG 3.13). Anyone who is cooking for himself, he is taking all responsibility for sinful activity even if he is a vegetarian, it doesn't matter. Yajña-śiṣṭāśinaḥ santo mucyante sarva-kilbiṣaiḥ. But if he takes the remnants of yajña—we are offering Kṛṣṇa daily—this is performing yajña. So we are taking the remnants of yajña. This is our philosophy. We are not taking directly. If I take directly, either a vegetarian or non-vegetarian, then I become responsible. Sinful. This is our philosophy. The law is there, but we have to tackle things very intelligently.

Philosophy Discussion on Hegel:

Śyāmasundara: Ethical advancement, he says that there's an ethical element...

Prabhupāda: He has no ethical principle. He does not know what is ethics. Otherwise he would not have supported that animal killing. He does not know what is ethics. He speaks something (indistinct) only. That's all. There is no practical application.

Philosophy Discussion on Henri Bergson:

Prabhupāda: We are also not neglecting the bodily necessities of life, but our main business is how to advance in Kṛṣṇa consciousness. So this is not supported by the state or the leaders of the society. They think they are unnecessary because they are animals. So that is the... If the leaders, yad yad ācarati śreṣṭhas tad tad eva itaraḥ janaḥ (BG 3.21), that is, every leading man accept that this is necessary. Just like we say "No illicit sex." So if the state helps, it can stop immediately. "No meat-eating": the state can immediately do it, "No slaughterhouse." If somebody says that it is enforcement for a person who wants to eat meat and the state has stopped, no. State at least can do this, that state is not going to maintain slaughterhouse. If you want to eat meat, you can kill an animal at your own house, but state is not going to commit these sinful activities, statewise. That is changed in every respect. No more breweries. State cannot maintain the manufacturing of liquor. If anyone individual wants, he can prepare for himself, but he cannot sell, he cannot induce others to take. He can for his personal (indistinct), he can take. In that case, state is giving liberty, "If you want eating meat, so do." But that is not encouragement; that is discouragement. That is Vedic injunction. Vedic injunction is that yes, you can have sex, but get yourself married properly like gentlemen and ladies do. But sex will not be allowed unrestricted intermingling of men and women and prostitution, brothels. That state has to stop. In this way whole thing can be revolutionized, and the society will be completely in human civilization and God consciousness. That is wanted.

Philosophy Discussion on John Stuart Mill:

Śyāmasundara: That rule is, "Do unto others as you would want them to do unto you." That is the golden rule, this rule of the utilitarians.

Prabhupāda: Yes. But they are not following. They are killing, but when he is to be killed, he goes away. But he does not think that "I don't want to be killed. Why shall I kill?" And Jesus Christ said, "Thou shall not kill." But they do not abide by this, and still they will call themselves Christians. Who wants to be killed? Nobody wants. Then why you are killing other animals? Where is your philosophy? If that is the philosophy, that I don't want to be killed, why shall I kill others? Who is following this? I shall kill you under some bad name. We'll give the dog a bad name and hang it. I want to kill cows and I say, "No, they have no soul." And what is the proof that we have got soul? I can kill you? Why there is law? By killing a man, he is hanged. Then why there is no such law for killing animal? What is this philosophy? Rascal's philosophy.

Philosophy Discussion on John Stuart Mill:

Hayagrīva: Well man, Mill concludes that conformity to nature has no connection whatever with right and wrong, and that man must amend nature. He must not act according to nature, but must—the word he uses is "amend"...

Prabhupāda: Yes, amend. Not only amend. The nature, that we discussed, almost always, the nature is animal nature. But man must be above the animal nature. That is rationality. Normally a man is called rational animal, so he should advance in rationality. Just for eating, eating is common to the man and to the animal, but man should be advanced, what kind of eating it should be. Not only natural, although natural tendency is... Just like man, some of, not all, some of them want to eat meat. So rationality is that "If I have got better foodstuff, why shall I kill that animal?" This is then rationality. But because he can eat meat, he can kill animal, he should go on killing animal, that is less intelligence. God has given so many nice foodstuff. Take for fruits, there are varieties of fruits Kṛṣṇa has given to the mankind, and we can utilize milk in so many nice preparation. So the fruits are not eaten by the animals. The dogs, cats, they do not eat fruit. It is meant for human being, so similarly there must, discrimination is the better part of valor. Is that not English proverb? So man should have discrimination, and especially for eating.

Philosophy Discussion on John Stuart Mill:

Hayagrīva: Christ said that no man is good.

Prabhupāda: Yes. Yes.

Hayagrīva: there's only one good. That's God.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That's a fact. You are thinking that this man is, so how he is good? He is limited in his power. He may think of his brother, of his nation, of his society but what does he do of other living beings? So how he can be good? A good man, speaking even a man like Gandhi, he is a good man, but when he was approached that stop cow killing, he could not do anything. Although he is advocating non-violence but he, the violence committing in the slaughterhouse, thousands and thousands of animals being killed, violence, what did he do? So how he is good man? Nobody can be good man.

Philosophy Discussion on William James:

Hayagrīva: James gave the following estimation of impersonalism and Buddhism. He wrote, "There are systems of thought which the world usually calls religious and yet which do not positively assume a God. Buddhism is in this case. Popularly, of course, the Buddha himself stands in place of a God, but in strictness, the Buddhistic system is atheistic."

Prabhupāda: Yes. That is described in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, sammohāya sura-dviṣām (SB 1.3.24). Lord Buddha appeared at a time when people became atheistic, and especially they began to kill animals in the sacrifice in large quantity. So God, Lord Buddha, appeared, being sympathetic to the poor animals. Sadaya-hṛdaya darśita-paśu-ghātam. He was very, very much aggrieved to see the poor animals are being killed unnecessarily. So he preached the religion of nonviolence, and because the people became atheist, so Lord Buddha, just to take them under his control, he also collaborated and said, "Yes, there is no God, but you hear me." But he is incarnation of God, so it is a kind of transcendental cheating that in the beginning he said there is no God, but he is God himself, and people accepted his words or instruction. That is Buddhism.

Philosophy Discussion on William James:

Hayagrīva: James gave the following estimation of impersonalism and Buddhism. He wrote, "There are systems of thought which the world usually calls religious and yet which do not positively assume a God. Buddhism is in this case. Popularly, of course, the Buddha himself stands in place of a God, but in strictness, the Buddhistic system is atheistic."

Prabhupāda: Yes. That is described in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, sammohāya sura-dviṣām (SB 1.3.24). Lord Buddha appeared at a time when people became atheistic, and especially they began to kill animals in the sacrifice in large quantity. So God, Lord Buddha, appeared, being sympathetic to the poor animals. Sadaya-hṛdaya darśita-paśu-ghātam. He was very, very much aggrieved to see the poor animals are being killed unnecessarily. So he preached the religion of nonviolence, and because the people became atheist, so Lord Buddha, just to take them under his control, he also collaborated and said, "Yes, there is no God, but you hear me." But he is incarnation of God, so it is a kind of transcendental cheating that in the beginning he said there is no God, but he is God himself, and people accepted his words or instruction. That is Buddhism. So this very word is used, sammohāya sura-dviṣām (SB 1.3.24). Sura-dviṣām, atheist class of men, are always against theist class of men. Therefore their name is that atheist means who are envious of devotees. So in order to cheat these persons who are envious of God or devotee, Lord Buddha appeared and established a system of religion on the platform of nonviolence—no more animal killing. Because those who are animal killers, they cannot understand God (indistinct). That is not possible. They may have some vague idea. So Lord Buddha wanted to stop these sinful activities, and he established the system of nonviolence.

Philosophy Discussion on Soren Aabye Kierkegaard:

Śyāmasundara: He says that it's not so much the fact of the decision but how the decision is made: if it's made with integrity and self-confidence.

Prabhupāda: How the decision... Why, how the decision is made, that I still don't know. How? Why? Why they make such decision? One man is running on a slaughterhouse. He's killing only. Another man is after humanitarian work, giving food, giving them chance to live. So what is the ultimate decision?

Śyāmasundara: The decision is...

Prabhupāda: There are two sides. There are two kinds of people are going. The same man, he is giving charity for feeding poor man or giving relief to the distressed man, but at the same time he's encouraging animal-killing. So what is the ethics? What is the ethical law in these two contradictory activities? One side... Just like our Vivekananda. He is advocating daridra-nārāyaṇa sevā, "Feed the poor," but feed the poor with mother Kālī's prasāda, where poor goats are killed. Just like, another, one side feeding the poor, another side killing the poor goat. So what is the ethic? What is the ethical law in this connection? Just like people open hospitals, and the doctor prescribes, "Give this man," what it is called," (Hindi), ox blood, or chicken juice." So what is this ethic? And they're supporting that "Here is chicken juice." Just because animal has no soul, so they can be killed. This is another theory. So why the animal has no soul? So imperfect knowledge. So on the basis of imperfect knowledge this ethic or this humanitarian, what is the value? We do not give any value to all this understanding. Where is the ethics? If you protect the human life by giving him something by killing—there are so many medicines, but the killing is very prominent—then next point should be that if you say that the human life is important, so nonimportant animal-killing can be supported to save the important. Then the question will be, "Why it is important? Why consider the human life is important and the animal life is not important?" These are the questions of ethical law. Where are these discussions on the ethical laws?

Philosophy Discussion on Arthur Schopenhauer:

Prabhupāda: So one can put this argument, that the soul is everlasting, so what if the body is killed? But that's all right, body is killed, but you cannot kill the body to hamper its progress. One living entity is destined to live in a certain body. If you destroy that body, then he has to wait for the next body. That means you are interfering with his progress. Therefore you are sinful. Just like I am living in this apartment. If somebody by force drives me away, it is criminal. If I go to the police, that "I was living in this apartment and this man by force has driven me," is it not criminal? So I am not lost because I am driven out of this body. But you will be liable for criminal punishment because you have forced me to leave this body. Ramakrishna Mission says that what is the point if a man or animal is killed? The soul is immortal, so what is this? What is that? The rascals, they do not know. The real philosophy is here. The soul is destined to live in a certain body for a certain period. If you immaturely stop it, then you become responsible. Exactly like that. I am living in my apartment. If you by force drive me away, you are criminal. They do not know all these things. Imperfect knowledge.

Philosophy Discussion on Martin Heidegger:

Prabhupāda: I can exist. Others may not exist. Is that philosophy?

Śyāmasundara: No. That is also a person(?) outside of you, but that my existence is personal.

Prabhupāda: Does my existence, it is first; other existence is secondary? Just like (if) I eat meat. I must eat, because I must have meat, so poor animals must be killed. So his existence is this, neglected. Is that their philosophy?

Śyāmasundara: Well he doesn't say that. He just says that "I have the feeling, the unique feeling that I exist individually as a person."

Prabhupāda: That's all right. I exist individually and others may not exist. Is not that philosophy? So I must exist, others may not exist. So others also must think like that. That is animal. I am thinking that "I must exist. I don't care for you." You are thinking that you must exist, you don't care for me, so therefore there is struggle between you and me-struggle for existence. We are fighting. I am thinking I must exist, you are saying you must exist. Is it not?

Philosophy Discussion on Carl Gustav Jung:

Śyāmasundara: He says that behavior is classified under different functions, for example there is sensory behavior, thinking behavior, fear and emotional behavior...

Prabhupāda: That is (indistinct), because the animals, the consciousness is not developed, and the animals' behavior is different. Similarly, if a man is not in this Kṛṣṇa consciousness, (indistinct) any difference? Kṛṣṇa conscious person, he'll not act anything like killing one animal, but another who is not Kṛṣṇa conscious, he will kill animals: "I must kill. I must kill." But the same man, when he is brought into Kṛṣṇa consciousness, he'll refuse. Just like the shikari, (indistinct), he was killing animal, half dead, he would enjoy. The same man, by grace of Nārada, when he became Vaiṣṇava, he was not prepared to kill even one ant. So the man is the same, the consciousness is different. So our program is like that. To bring man into Kṛṣṇa consciousness, he will become perfect.

Philosophy Discussion on B. F. Skinner:

Śyāmasundara: And they call their process social engineering. For instance, they say a criminal does not become bad because he is naturally bad but it's because of his environment. So if we train him in such a way he will be good, and we can...

Prabhupāda: Just like in the Western countries, the social (indistinct), the killing of animals—it is taken not bad. In other societies it is taken as bad. How is that? There are two contradictory societies. One society says that nonviolence is nice, better, but another society says no, violence is better. Then how will I (indistinct)? Which society is good, which society bad? How you will decide?

Devotee: He has no way of deciding.

Prabhupāda: No. There is no way. If you come to the Vedic life, then you will know.

Philosophy Discussion on The Evolutionists Thomas Huxley, Henri Bergson, and Samuel Alexander:

Prabhupāda: People suffer for sinful activities. Just like we are keeping the account nicely so that when we present to the government they may not see any flaw. So we are keeping account nicely. That means we are trying to save ourself from sinful activities. And if there is discrepancies in the account, that is sinful activity. So as soon as there is discrepancy, one has to suffer. So Kṛṣṇa says... But the material world is so made that even if you do not want to act sinfully, unconsciously you will act so many things sinfully. Unconsciously. Even you have no desire. Just like we had done that. Unconsciously we did not take the certificate, and we are suffering. There was no intention to violate this rule, but unconsciously we did not do it. Now we have to suffer. So similarly, unconsciously or consciously, we are acting so many things sinful. Just like when you are walking on the street, you have no desire to kill animals, but on account of your walking, so many ants are being killed. So you are responsible for that. Therefore that vyādha, that hunter, he was jumping. He knows. He has become devotee. So he knows that "Any creature may not die." So he was jumping. This is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. A Kṛṣṇa conscious person knows that "I cannot kill even an ant." But unconsciously or consciously, we kill. Suppose we are drinking water. There are so many germs we are killing. And when you rub the spices, there are so many germs are killed. When you ignite fire, so many germs are killed. Therefore Vedic injunction is that pañcasuna-yajña. You must perform yajña daily so that you may be saved from the sinful activities you have committed unconsciously. So that cannot be saved. But Kṛṣṇa says that "Just surrender unto Me and I will give you protection from the resultant action of any kind of sinful activities, consciously or unconsciously."

Philosophy Discussion on The Evolutionists Thomas Huxley, Henri Bergson, and Samuel Alexander:

Prabhupāda: So similarly, in the Vedas there is recommendation that animals can be sacrificed in the Vedas with mantra. That... Therefore the process, to test the power of the mantra, that animal is put into the fire and the animal again comes out with a new life. That is the test. Just like you test how the microphone is working. So how the Vedic mantras are being chanted rightly, that is tested by putting... Just like in laboratory a small animal is killed. But that is killed. They cannot give life. But here, in sacrifice, aśvamedha-yajña, gomedha-yajña, there is... Gavalambham, aśvamedhaṁ gavālambham (CC Adi 17.164). The animal sacrificed, but it comes again with ill life. That is the test, how the Vedic mantra is chanted. So because there is no such qualified brāhmaṇa, therefore in this age all kinds of sacrifices stopped. So Veda is no authority. The mantra has no life. So that is accepted by everyone. At least, civilized class of men.

Philosophy Discussion on Johann Gottlieb Fichte:

Śyāmasundara: So if one is looking on the objects of the world in terms of what they ought to be...

Prabhupāda: Ought to be, how you'll know it? Unless he gets information from the higher authority what is ought to be? You cannot manufacture. If you are in the modes of ignorance, your "ought to be", just like they're saying the animals have no soul and we are saying, "No, you cannot kill animals." So we are in different position. So what is "ought to be", who will dictate? If you dictate yourself, your concept of killing, it "ought to be". And my concept of not killing, is "ought to be". So what is the standard? Then you have to go to the authority, go for judgement.

Philosophy Discussion on Plotinus:

Hayagrīva: Accepted in..., the soul living in animals and also in plants.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That is the fact. He is right. That is Vedic conclusion. Sarva-yoniṣu, all different forms of life, there is soul, part and parcel of God. How some foolish person can think of animal has no soul? What is the reason? There is no very strong argument. The animals may be less intelligent. A child may be less intelligent than the father; that does not mean there is no soul. This gross and doggish mentality, animal mentality, is killing the human civilization. Now they have degraded so much that they think that the embryo has no soul. In this way man is being put into darker and darkest region of ignorance.

Philosophy Discussion on St. Augustine:

Hayagrīva: He says, uh... (break) He says..., this is, this is Augustine writing. He said, "Some people try to stretch the prohibition 'Thou shalt not kill' to cover beasts and cattle and make it unlawful to kill any such animal, but then why not include plants and anything rooted in and feeding on the soil? After all, things like this, though devoid of feeling, are said to have life and therefore can die and so be killed by violent treatment."

Prabhupāda: No, that is not Vedic philosophy. Vedic philosophy admits that one living entity is the food for another living entity. That is natural. That is stated in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam,

ahastāni sahastānām

apadāni catuṣ-padām

phalgūni tatra mahatāṁ

jīvo jīvasya jīvanam

Those who have got hands, they eat the animals without hands, only four legs, and the four-legged animals eats the animals which cannot move—that means plants and vegetables. Similarly, the weak is the food for the strong. In this way there is natural law that one living entity is food for another living entity. But our philosophy, Kṛṣṇa consciousness philosophy, is not based on this platform, that plant life is not sensitive and animal life is more sensitive or human life is more sensitive. We take all of them as life, either human being or animal or plants or fish, it doesn't matter. That is inevitable. Either you eat animal or vegetable, you eat some living entity. That is inevitable. You cannot avoid. Now it it the question of selection. That, of course, is there. But apart from this vegetarian or nonvegetarian diet, we are concerned with Kṛṣṇa prasādam. Kṛṣṇa, whatever..., our philosophy is whatever Kṛṣṇa eats, we take the remnants of His foodstuff. So Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā, "You give Me food, and prepared from patraṁ phalaṁ toyam, vegetation." So if by killing vegetable or plant there is any sin, that, that is Kṛṣṇa's. We simply eat after His eating. This is our philosophy. We are not after vegetarian diet or nonvegetarian diet. Whatever Kṛṣṇa eats, we take the remnants of food.

Philosophy Discussion on George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel:

Hayagrīva: ...if you injure the body of a person, you are actually injuring the person...

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Hayagrīva: ...because you are injuring his property.

Prabhupāda: Yes. But why the Christians killing?

Hayagrīva: How is that?

Prabhupāda: Why the Christians are killing animals?

Hayagrīva: Yes. If that's the case, why mistreat the animals, animal bodies?

Prabhupāda: Hm?

Hayagrīva: The animals have no right to life, he says, because they have no will.

Prabhupāda: That is his foolishness. He has got will. When you take to the slaughterhouse, he protests.

Hayagrīva: He says, "Mankind has the right of absolute proprietorship. A thing belongs to the accidental first-comer who gets it."

Prabhupāda: What accident?

Hayagrīva: To... A thing belongs... Or whoever comes first. Say there's a gold mine. If I get there first, it's mine, because I'm the first-comer.

Prabhupāda: That means that, then, "Might is right."