Q&A: Animal Life Has No Value
Animal Life Has No Value
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I was talking with a vegan friend, and when he asked me why I don’t feel a moral problem with eating animal-based food, I told him that animal life has no value. When he asked me what that means, I said that animals don’t pour content and meaning into their lives. But honestly, inside I felt that I don’t really have any idea what it means to say that their lives have no value. I know that of course it is forbidden to cause them suffering and so on, but for example, does that mean that one could kill a baby who was born in a coma, say in an irreversible condition, with nobody around who cares about him, and whose life has no meaning and never will have any meaning, in order to save a baby who urgently needs an organ donation and whose life will be full of meaning in the future? Or perhaps since he is in the category of “human beings,” his life has value regardless of what he does. I would appreciate clarification.
Answer
First of all, the discussion is not about the question of the value of animal life, but about the issue of animal suffering. Industrial farming and slaughter involve terrible suffering for animals, and from the standpoint of those involved in this, this is a complete prohibition, both halakhically and morally. Consumption of meat assists these prohibitions. As for an animal raised without suffering, I do not see a major problem with eating it.
There is no way to explain who has value in their life and when. This is a basic intuition, and it cannot be grounded in more fundamental principles. Human life has value, even if there is no potential for development (as with a completely incompetent person).
Discussion on Answer
Without slaughter it will die another day, with no less suffering.
You slaughter and kill an animal for your own need when you could meet that need without killing it. So how can you say, “As for an animal raised without suffering, I do not see a major problem with eating it”?
Schrödinger, it would be better if Michi answered, so that nonsense answers of this sort can be spared the blog’s followers.
If you didn’t understand my straightforward answer, pray to the One whose wisdom might perhaps take pity and have mercy.
Schrödinger,
Your answer is not straightforward but puffed up.
You are a demagogue, a sorcerer and a diviner; are there no animals that die a natural death? Besides, even if they are preyed upon, that is because the predatory animal has no choice in light of its desire to survive, unlike a human being, who has an alternative. If so, by choosing to devour a living creature instead of an option that does not kill, he is a criminal.
Correction: *the desire *to survive*
I’ll explain, because I am patient and courteous, and may it be the will of the blessed Creator to treat me likewise with kindness and mercy.
Natural death hurts no less than slaughter. How do they die? They waste away from old age, or from hunger, or they are preyed upon by others. In nature they generally do not die of sudden cardiac arrest surrounded by loving offspring after full lives of chewing fresh grass in a protected meadow. If there is a cow that is destined to be torn apart by a lion and die a very agonizing death, and instead a human comes and slaughters it, then in the end he has reduced the cow’s suffering. If a person has emotional issues with doing the act himself (slaughter, suffering of X amount for the cow) instead of letting others do it (a lion preying on it, suffering of 150X), then “he should take a pill.”
You are making assumptions about “how they die.”
Do you have proof? Have you studied the matter? Do you even know a bit about where “they” live?
In short, even Schrödinger’s cat can draw conclusions from baseless assumptions.
And may the blessed Lord grant you understanding, so that you may draw logical conclusions from assumptions that are grounded and backed by observation.
Written through tears,
Yeshayahu Leibowitz
“A bit about where ‘they’ live” = should read: where they live.
I would ask to draw your attention to the fact that if you disagree with me, that means that you too are making assumptions about how they die. That is, you assume they die a death less painful than slaughter (otherwise we have no factual dispute).
Signed mockingly, Schrödinger.
“with me” = with me.
I am assuming nothing. I am assuming only one thing: the postulate that it is forbidden to cause suffering to animals. You, by contrast, want to justify causing suffering with all sorts of pretexts based on assumptions that you are unable to support with facts. Am I discussing this with the late Schrödinger, or with his cat?
“By contrast” = rather.
If you join the assumption that in nature the animal will eventually die a death more painful than slaughter, then the whole difference is whether the suffering is caused by a human being or by “nature.” The miserable animal does not care about that distinction, and it would be happy to be slaughtered rather than to waste away on the savannah. Therefore one cannot use the animal’s suffering in order to prefer natural death over death by slaughter. For wicked postulates like yours, human beings invented a special device called a toilet. In my view it is very simple, and with this I will put an end to the matter. The truth is that to explain it to you I could also have sent my cat, but I made a mistake and came myself. Ciao.
By the way, I am puzzled by Dr. Avshalom Kor, who rushed to correct things but did not correct the one mistake that is really a mistake and not just a typo, namely in Prof. Leibowitz’s words, who wrote a form meaning “may He grant you favor,” whereas it should be written differently, because in the verses it appears twice in a vocalization pronounced with an “o” sound. And although strictly speaking it should be vocalized one way, still one should stick to what is written.
And if you say: why am I puzzled by the doctor for not correcting it and not by the professor for making the mistake? The answer is that as for this professor here, I have learned to lower my expectations.
Tell your vegan friend to be happy with your lot, for thanks to you and the rest of the meat-eaters they make sure to increase the number of cows in the world.
If everyone were like him, there would be no need for cattle.
To sum up, whoever loves animals should eat meat—or raise a cow not for profit.
Absolutely not. “The Lord make His face shine upon you, and be gracious to you.”
I see that your pattern of drawing conclusions before checking the assumptions has struck again.
https://www.mgketer.org/tanach/1/43/29 God be gracious to you, my son
https://www.mgketer.org/tanach/12/30/19 surely He will be gracious to you
It is pronounced with an “o” sound.
Michi,
You say that “industrial farming *and slaughter* involve terrible suffering for animals.”
And also: “As for an animal raised without suffering, I do not see a major problem with eating it.”
But slaughter causes suffering.