[Avodah] anti-meat rhetoric "according to Judaism"

[Jacob Farkas]

> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 05:50:28PM -0400, Jacob Farkas wrote:
> : As I pointed out, there is no precedent in avoiding TBC regarding meat
> : production, and with good reason. In pasture raised animals and
> : poultry, there is no Tza'ar factor. So while it isn't pointless
> : cruelty like dogfighting, the entire shift in production from a method
> : that yields no Tza'ar, to a method that includes these horrible
> : conditions, is a shift based in higher regard for profits than animal
> : welfare.

R' Micha Berger:
> You have yet to prove that's a halachic problem. My whole point is that
> TBC doesn't take much to be mutar -- who said increased profits isn't
> sufficient justification?

RMF discusses this regarding veal. See our discussion from a few years back:
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol17/v17n079.shtml#08

>
> Here's my take on TBC. Animals have no "I", no awareness of their own
> mental states. This appears to be true based on brain anatomy (they
> lack a prefrontal cortex, which is where the job gets done in us),
> in their not being attributed with bechirah chafshi (and therefore
> have no need to monitor and edit their thoughts), nor a ruach
> memalela (the aspect of the soul the Gra assigns the functions of
> ego and bechirah to).
> See <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol10/v10n091.shtml#14>.
>
> Thus TBC is an excercise in not getting used to cruelty, but isn't
> actually about avoiding cruelty in the real sense of the word. TBC is
> because we anthropomorphise animal pain, and could ch"v get used to
> ignoring another's suffering.
>
> You are setting a threshold based on the notion that there is real
> suffering going on that carries a moral burden to avoid. Who said?

I am assuming nothing of the sort. My understanding is that TBC is our
call to intervene on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves. See
my post about the subject:
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol16/v16n166.shtml#09

> Therefore, as long as the person has a real point, why would it be
> iqar hadin to harm an animal? Even if that point is to eat more meat
> than absolutely necessary, or earn more money. As long as the focus
> isn't about being mean to another.

This is consistent with your position that the prohibition of TBC is
negated by Tzorekh haAdam, defined as any human benefit. Some would
require that there needs to be a benefit to human necessity before we
discount animal welfare.

--Jacob Farkas