Meat paradox
The meat paradox is the conflict between the facts that most people care about animals yet embrace diets that necessitate harming them.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] Psychologists suggest that this conflict between beliefs and behavior leads to cognitive dissonance,[9][7][10][3] which they say meat-eaters relieve in several ways: by avoiding consideration of the provenance of animal products, and by ascribing reduced sentience, cognitive ability and moral standing to animals they regard as food.[11][2][3][5][12] Avoiding consideration of the provenance of animal products is another strategy.[5] Melanie Joy argues that this is why meat is rarely served with the animal's head or other intact body parts.[13]
Ascription of limited mental capacity
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/Woman_walking_pig%2C_October_2008_%28cropped%29_2.jpg/220px-Woman_walking_pig%2C_October_2008_%28cropped%29_2.jpg)
Psychologists argue that meat eaters reduce cognitive dissonance by minimizing their perception of animals as conscious and able to experience pain and suffering, particularly animals they regard as food.[5][7] This is a psychologically effective strategy, because organisms perceived as less able to suffer are considered to be of less moral concern, and therefore more acceptable as food.[1][14]
A 2010 study randomly assigned college students to eat beef jerky or cashews, then judge the moral relevance and cognitive abilities of a variety of animals. Compared with students who were given cashews, those who ate beef jerky expressed less moral concern for animals, and assigned cows a diminished ability to have mental states that entail the capacity to experience suffering.[2]
Studies in 2011 similarly found that people were more inclined to feel it was appropriate to kill animals for food when they perceived the animals as having diminished mental capacities; that, conversely, they perceived animals as having diminished mental capacities when told they were used as food; and, again, that eating meat caused participants to ascribe fewer mental abilities to animals. A separate study found that subjects who read a description of an exotic animal rated it as less sympathetic and less able to experience suffering if they were told that native people ate the animal.[1][5][15]
References
- ^ a b c Loughnan, Steve; Bastian, Brock; Haslam, Nick (2014). "The Psychology of Eating Animals", Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(2), April, pp. 104–108. doi:10.1177/0963721414525781
- ^ a b c Loughnan, Steve; et al. (2010). "The role of meat consumption in the denial of moral status and mind to meat animals". Appetite. 55 (1): 156–159. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2010.05.043. PMID 20488214.
- ^ a b c Fawcett, Anne (2013). "Euthanasia and morally justifiable killing in a veterinary clinical context," in Jay Johnston, Fiona Probyn-Rapsey (eds.), Animal Death, Sydney: Sydney University Press, p. 215.
- ^ Loughnan, Steve; Bratanova, Boyka; Puvia, Elisa (2011). "The Meat Paradox: How Are We Able to Love Animals and Love Eating Animals?". In-Mind Italia, 1, pp. 15–18. "Meat eating is morally problematic because it contrasts our desire to avoid hurting animals with our appetite for their flesh. This tension – to love animals and to love meat – is the essence of the meat paradox."
- ^ a b c d e f Bastian, Brock; et al. (2011). "Don't mind meat? The denial of mind to animals used for human consumption" (PDF). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 38 (2): 247–256. doi:10.1177/0146167211424291.
- ^ Bastian, Brock (23 March 2011). "The meat paradox: how we can love some animals and eat others", The Conversation.
- ^ a b c Rothgerber, Hank (August 2014). "Efforts to overcome vegetarian-induced dissonance among meat eaters". Appetite. 79: 32–41. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2014.04.003.
- ^ Hodson, Gordon (3 March 2014). "The Meat Paradox: Loving but Exploiting Animals", Psychology Today.
- ^ Piazza, Jared; et al. (August 2015). "Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns". Appetite. 91: 114–128. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.011.
"How people defend eating meat", Lancaster University, 15 May 2015.
- ^ Hodson, Gordon (3 March 2014). "The Meat Paradox: Loving but Exploiting Animals", Psychology Today.
- ^ Loughnan, Steve; Bratanova, Boyka; Puvia, Elisa (2011). "The Meat Paradox: How Are We Able to Love Animals and Love Eating Animals?", In-Mind Italia, 1, pp. 15–18.
- ^ Presser, Lois (2013). Why We Harm, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, pp. 50–68.
- ^ Joy, Melanie (2011) [2009]. Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism. Conari Press, p. 16. ISBN 1573245054.
- ^ Waytz, Adam; Gray, Kurt; Epley, Nicholas; Wegner, Daniel M. (2010). "Causes and consequences of mind perception" (PDF). Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 14 (8): 383–388. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.05.006.
- ^ Bratanova, Boyka; et al. (2011). "The effect of categorization as food on the perceived moral standing of animals". Appetite. 57 (1): 193–196. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2011.04.020. PMID 21569805.