intentionality

recent papers have written about whether one should release animals. some people argued that liberating animals should not be done as these animals released usually die as a result of their inability to adapt to the environment. reasons offered include the inability of domesticated animals to adapt to the wild, wrong ecosystem leading to even more problems in the balance of nature. also, there were those who argued that releasing animals purchased from animal providers create a demand for it and as a result, translate to even more animals being caught from the wild. this only translates to harming more animal in the long run. however, some also insisted that saving lives need no further considerations about other factors. hmmm... it seemed like there were a lot of differing views. it was also obvious that there was no clear consensus amongst the buddhist community about whether this is a right or wrong thing to do. the result was that people get confused and end of the day, many people end up arguing over the act. this was precisely what many of my friends and i debated on over vesak. let me share my thoughts.

fundamentally, i think the act itself is right. nothing can be more noble than saving a life. but we need to discuss about the whole idea behind why a person does it (the concept of intentionality) and the context of how it is done and the impact of doing it before we can conclude how right this act is. yes, there are right and there are right-er acts. the intention to save the animal is noble and pure. no one can argue against it. and apart from giving the captured animal a second chance, the individuals earns immense merits and derive much good from the act itself. but i do ask - when a person releases the animals, is it really with the intention to save them or with the intention to earn the merits? if it is the latter, then, i think one misses the point altogether. instead, in the desire to earn merits, one may end up doing more harm than good. the result of this is more suffering resulting in negative karma on the person himself/ herself instead... this leads me to talk about context of an action. a people also need to recognise the context when they do the act of releasing animals. let's take a look at the following different contexts.

• firstly, in the context of a business chain, animals are caught for food, entertainment, etc. there is a demand for it. and if by purchasing these animals for the purpose of releasing them creates a demand such that more animals are harmed in the process, then it is probably not the best answer to do so. for the larger good, one might probably do better to use the money for other more noble acts such as contributing to animal shelters. as for those animal that were caught, perhaps it is their negative karma that they have to repay.

• secondly, in the context of a domesticated animal. it is clear that releasing them would probably kill them in the end. they do not have the ability to fend for themselves and/ or feed themselves. so, in this context, it might probably be better to continue to keep them, feed them and love them.

• thirdly, in the context of animals that was retrieved from the wild because it had suffered an injury or orphaned for whatever reasons. if this is the case, i agree that it would be most meritorious to nurse them back to health and release them back into the wild. before doing so, one should also make sure one prepares the animals adequately. desensitise them to humans, increase their wild instincts by training them in a simulated environment, etc... and after releasing them, one must make sure one monitors the animal is able to adapt to the environment before leaving them on their own.

these were some of my reflections and take on liberating lives/ releasing animals into the wild. it involved a lot of ethical reasoning. there are no right or wrong answers. instead, there are right answers and there are right-er answers. sometimes, a right answer at the action-level may not be very right at the system-level. perhaps, in such situations where one has to choose, one might want to ask - which of the answers is less bad, or which of both answers are more right? i used to think liberating animals is a noble act. i still do. but understanding the impact at the system-level now, i will certainly not buy an animal to release them.

such is the teachings of buddhism. often, there are no right or wrong. it forces one to think, to question and then to decide. in the context of releasing animals, i go back to my most fundamental question - what is your real intention when you release animals?