Meat consumption is central to billions of people’s diet across the globe and is often focus on culinary enjoyment. Many individuals enjoy the company of animals and like them and often are distasted with the harm done to them. The discrepancy between animal love and enjoyment of meat constructs “meat paradox” where people concern for animals welfare clashes with their enjoyment of meat. The exploration of this inconsistency provides insight into the psychological processes associated with typical daily actions. Eating meat is a morally significant notion which some individuals insist on its ethicality while others do not consider it a moral choice. Additionally, exploration of the meat paradox offers perceptive on how appetite as a dominant human source influence behavior and justification of meat consumption.
Moreover, the discussion of the meat paradox provides insight about culinary practices as a hobby embedded within the society may obscure moral responsibility. Individuals often formulate justifications for whether to consume or not to consume meat while a good number merely avoid merely ignore where meat comes from and the processes involved in its preparation. The paper explores the lengths individuals go to overcome the belief and behavior inconsistencies related to meat paradox and justify their decisions on the issue. The article concentrates on three core arguments, the prevalent justification, the denial of moral aspects to animals and the influence of social and cultural aspects. The common reasons provide an overview of standard validations, the concept of morality and animal mind probes deeper and societal dimension provide insight into the influence of the majority.
Conceptualization
One of the most common justification individuals often use to facilitate their culinary practices of eating meat is the application of cognitive dissonance theory where individuals go to great lengths to mentally justify their behaviors in efforts of correlating actions and attitudes. Indeed, many individuals are psychologically disposed to provide validation for meat consumption. The typical justifications include the 4Ns including nature, necessary, normal and nice (Piazza, Ruby and Loughnan 114). The psychological disengagement serves to reduce the dissonance between enjoying meat and distasting the painful processes in their production. Another standard way, individuals justify meat consumption is to deny that animals like human beings possess morally relevant qualities. In many cases, the possession of mental abilities forms the basis of accrediting moral worth (Bastian, Loughnan and Haslam 248). As such, meat eaters often diminish animal’s moral standing which validates the harm in meat processing.
Additionally, since several culinary practices are rooted in social and cultural factors, the justification of meat consumption may be predominantly linked to social aspects such as meat organizations, producer influence and marketers’ impact and cultural practices such as festivals (Gossard and York 2). In this sense, associating as a group of individuals who share certain beliefs encourage individuals to maintain morally questionable behaviors which they consider normal and cherished cultural commitments.
Prevalent Justifications
According to the cognitive dissonance theory, human beings are often uncomfortable when confronted with varied opinions whether in behavior or beliefs and often seek ways to reduce the feeling (Piazza, Ruby and Loughnan 114). The meat paradox, the conflict between enjoying meat and harming animals represents a dissonance. Humans by nature try to reduce the friction either by rejecting meat consumption which brings an individual’s actions to correlate their behavior or by making opinions and beliefs correspond behavior through various psychological techniques. Despite the increase in vegetarians across the globe, meat consumption remains extensive around the world hence providing proof of moral disengagement. Moral disengagement involves several processes that rationalize behavior. Providing justifications often have several personal and social benefits including maintenance of positive self-image as an honest individual.
The common aspects of moral disengagement involve the 4Ns justifications where meat eaters maintain eating meat is natural, normal, necessary and nice (Piazza, Ruby and Loughnan 115). Indeed, through a recurrent process of historical, social association, individuals in the current society continue to hold eating meat is natural. Certainly, many individuals often pinpoint the biological aspects such as the canine's teeth which provide validations for meat eating. People believe meat is what individuals naturally crave and is what the evolved human species which are meant to have dominion over animals deserve to eat. Consequently, meat eaters maintain organisms feeding on each other is nature the cycle of life and the core of the ecosystem. In the case of the norm, meat eaters in the current society argue the most people in the contemporary world eat meat and as such meat eating is expected and rationalized by the majority. Therefore, meat appeals to the dominant societal aspects, the perception of normative behavior and both historical and socially constructed attitudes (Gossard and York 2).
Additionally, many continue to argue on the point of necessity. Despite recent statistics on the health problems associated with meat eating, there is a commonly held notion that for individuals to be strong and healthy one must consume at least some amount of meat. One popular idea is the argument that an individual cannot maintain sufficient protein dietary levels without consumption of meat. While several nutritionists contend that one can efficiently acquire all body requirements without beef, the belief of necessity of meat persists (Fox and Ward 423). Furthermore, individuals argue on the need of animal consumption in the control of animal population and economic stability.
Moreover, in recent years several lines of analysis indicate enjoyment derived from eating meat is one of the core barriers to reducing meat eating. Many people admit it is merely “nice” to eat meat. A study conducted in Australia concluded that one of the issues for women contemplating a vegetarian diet is the prevalence meat appreciation and enjoyment throughout the country (Piazza, Ruby and Loughnan 116). In this regard, pro-meat attitudes provide strong validation for continued meat consumption. Moreover, statistics indicate enjoyment of meat is one of the standard arguments by meat eaters. It is important to acknowledge the justifications associated with the 4N are often reinforced by various aspects such as family, religion and the media.
In the article “Consider the Lobster,” the author, Wallace voices an idea that the current meat consumption and the associated harmful effects to the animals will be considered inhumane in future generations. He contends that the yet to come generation will perceive animal cruelty in the same lens the society today considers sexism and slavery (Wallace 53). Indeed, many times in the past the 3Ns have been used to rationalize border issues in the society such as the case of women suffrage. Individuals that were previously against women voting often insisted it is “necessary” to deny women the right to vote in efforts of avoiding specific damages to the nation. Moreover, they argued on the natural superiority of the male gender concerning intelligence and the historical normalness of male gender voting (Piazza, Ruby and Loughnan 116). Currently, the notion of male-only voting system is considered ludicrous. However, the idea of a male voting system was eradicated in the society when many individuals began to question the justifications. Meat consumption is widely endorsed across the world, and while many vegetarians challenge the arguments of meat eaters, it is apparent the validations supporting the concept of meat eating will remain unchallenged in a large capacity.
Animal mind and Moral Concern
The thought that animals feel pain when slaughtered and can think and understand their unfortunate fate is threatening to every meat consumer. One of the most common motivations for a vegetarian lifestyle is rooted in the ethicality of the fear and pain involved in the preparation of the products. At the core of this perspective is the firm belief that animals should not be mistreated for human benefit (Singer 24). As such, restraining from the consumption of meat is thus a sacrifice, an ethical consideration to save animals from pain and mistreatment. Many of the ethical vegetarians often derive their motivations from philosophical, ideological and to some extent spiritual framework. Vegetarians by moral aspects rather than health factors often find meat more disgusting.
The moral concern of the animals is often associated with the mind. Acknowledging the animals that human beings consume have thoughts that work in similar ways as the human brain showcases animals deserves as much ethical consideration as other individuals in the society hence warranting conflict in consumption. Fortunately, for animal eaters looking for validation for their consumption, the notion of animals have lesser mental capabilities enjoys extensive support. A multitude of research suggests animal minds are less complicated than the human brain hence justifying the more inferior moral status of animals (Bastian, Loughnan and Haslam 251). Perceiving animals as lacking active minds is a common justification in which individuals authenticate using animals for instrumental purposes.
Singer (34) in his argument of equality of all animals insists while there are many differences between humans and other animals, there are no barriers to extending the basic principles of fairness to non-human animals. He contends when the society insists all human beings are equal irrespective of their sex, race, and gender it asserts that while there may be differences, the distinctions do not limit the chance to equality. Often individuals who emphasize the importance of a hierarchical inegalitarian community often pinpoint that by whatever test human are different whether in size, shape, moral engagement, intellectual abilities and so forth. Singer approaches equality from a philosophical perception emphasizing holding human equal despite core differences validates the equality between humans and non-humans animals (Singer 26).
Additionally, the human ascription of mental capabilities to animals is often driven by subjective notions rather than objective facts. Individual perception of the animal mind is surprisingly flexible. In efforts of understanding animal behavior especially in connection to companionship people often ascribe thoughts to animals. For instance, many individuals consider their dogs smart on the mere aspect they can be thought a trick. As such, it is deductible human often deny brains to food animals to validate the horrendous activities involvement in meat preparation (Bastian, Loughnan and Haslam 250). Sometimes, the justification of denying brain to animals often take an offensive approach with the idea that animals are by nature ferocious as such would have no remorse for attacking humans. Having a mind assigns people the right to humane treatment as such the reminder that animals have thoughts but are merely killed for food creates moral anguish.
Conferring to the action-based model of dissonance, individuals desire to minimize cognitive conflicts that often disrupt active behavior it is evident humans deny animals brains on selfish pursuits (Piazza, Ruby and Loughnan 115). As such, moral disengagement provides a new justification to the obscuring of ethical responsibility to animals. In many cases, dissonance is influenced by varies factors including the reminder of the animal-beef association with the practical example of the cow-meat connection. Dissonance may also be intensified when a person expects to act against individual beliefs.
Additionally, individuals often go to great extent to separate the animal from the meat in efforts of avoiding the primitiveness and inhumanity of feeding on animals. Indeed, people often refer to pork instead of a pig in efforts to create a disengagement that protects the mind from acknowledging the immorality of hurting animals (Bastian, Loughnan and Haslam 247). Undeniably, most individuals are disgusted by the preparation activities and as such ultimately avoid thinking about the work involved in preparation.
Social and Cultural Influence
Recent statistics indicate that meat is not only unnecessary for a healthy diet but also a risk factor for various health issues such as heart conditions. However, despite societal awareness of healthy nutrition, meat consumption remains a core part of billions of individuals in the world (Gossard and York 2). Although vegetarianism is on the rise in the western societies, it encompasses a handful of the entire population. Such evidence indicates biological necessity does not readily explain the wide-spread meat consumption. A common argument against meat consumption is the notion that meat is not necessary for healthy living (Fox and Ward 425). Since dietary factors cannot account for the significant rates of meat consumption, it is apparent other factors play a role influencing the decision to consume meat and the associated culinary activities. In this sense, cultural and social aspects beyond consumer demand often justify meat eating.
On societal influence, it is evident meat eating, and culinary activities are not entirely explained by the forces of demand. In many cases, meat production is influenced by several other factors including government policies such as subsidies and other industry groups often impact consumption. In recent years, political economists often argue the economic elite cannot only influence but control consumer preferences (Gossard and York 2). The influence on consumers is often depicted on social, psychological and cultural aspects, for instance, the infamous marketing strategies of the 21st century. As such, it is deductive to say production influences opinions that justify consumption since producers and markets enjoy cultural hegemony.
Cultural hegemony showcases the control over the values and beliefs of a particular culture. Subsequently, from this perceptive, the structural organization in the meat industry is a significant influence on individuals’ decisions to consume meat. Historical evidence showcases the substantial shifts and growth in the meat industry in the 19th century were influenced the ability of corporate interest to alter individual perception (Gossard and York 3).
However, despite the apparent corporate influence Psychologists have often argued individuals are a product of their environment and as such, it is essential to acknowledge various social psychological factors such as values and beliefs often impact meat consumption. Indeed, many researchers contend values and beliefs are more influential to a vegetarian’s decision to refrain from eating than do demographics (Piazza, Ruby and Loughnan 117). Similarly, a multitude of research points to the broad impact on social and cultural factors as compared to economic and demographic factors on meat consumption (Wallace 54). In the analysis of social influences, the structural position such as race, class, gender, and age most probably plays a significant role in the impact a person’s socialization, life experiences in addition to psychological attributes. It is apparent social structural factors mediate macro-structural aspects and mental conditions having the prospect to explain the motives and justifications for meat consumption. In this sense, variations in social distinctions may distinguish one group from another in their meat consumption patterns.
For, instance, a case in point on the influence of culture on individual meat consumption and justification is the Maine Lobster Festivals that draws thousands on a yearly besides. The crowd involves both locals and tourists looking for good fun. In 2003 celebrations, more than 25,000 pounds of freshly caught lobster was consumed after preparation in the globe’s biggest lobster cooker (Wallace 50). This illustrates the influence of culture on not only consumption but also the validation associated with eating. In many cases, the fresh-caught lobsters are often supposed to be alive when they are put in the cooker. It is deductible the cultural aspect of the festivals continue to attract individuals who usually watch lobsters die with the validation of cultural and social responsibility associated with the celebration (Wallace 54). This case illustrates the ability of social and cultural aspects to influence meat consumption patterns.
Research on the influence of social structure on meat consumption suggested that various factors often influence the validation of meat consumption from ethnicity to gender (Gossard and York 1). According to the study, the male regularly consumes more meat in comparison with the female with the held notion that men require “powerful” and masculine food. Additionally, the findings showcased that Hispanics eat more meat than non-Hispanic which illustrate a profound impact of ethnicity on meat consumption (Gossard and York 7). According to the survey, the location of residence like ethnicity often influences meat eating showcasing evidence in areas like Maine where Lobster eating is relatively high compared to the average consumption rates across the USA (Wallace 50). The study concluded the social structural differences in meat consumption suggests both social and cultural aspects affect dietary habits including the decision to consume or not to eat meat. The researchers insist that meat consumption goes beyond biological necessity and as such many of the justifications for meat eating are embedded with complex social and cultural forces.
Conclusion
Many omnivores are often confronted with the idea of a “meat paradox” where one is divided between enjoying meat and moral thought of harming animals. Consistent with the cognitive dissonance theory, individuals tend to rationalize actions to reduce dissonance. As such, the resolution can take two approaches refraining from eating meat which correlates behavior to moral ideals or changing one’s belief and outlook to coordinate with behavior through various maneuvers including rationalization, denying mental capabilities to animals and other social and cultural factors that influence individual decisions. Moreover, the social structural position of an individual such as gender, race, ethnicity, a location of residence and social class affect dietary habits in general and particularly the justification of meat consumption. As such it is apparent meanings, customs and traditions shape animal eating behavior especially on a social and cultural significance of various types of meat on different social groups. It is evident the issue of meat eating is a multi-facet concept affected and influenced by several factors with varying degrees. While some justifications are merely personal, it is essential to acknowledge societal and cultural aspects have enormous impacts on individual decisions.
Works Cited
Bastian , Brock , et al. "Don't Mind Meat? The denial of brain to animals used for human consumption." Personality and Social Psychology Bullenting
38.2 (2012): 247-256.
Fox, Nick and Katie Ward. "Health, ethics and study. A qualitative study of vegetarian motives." Appetite 50.2-3 (2008): 422-429.
Gossard , Marcia Hill and Richard York. "Social structural Influences on meat Consumption." Human Ecology Review 10.1 (2003): 1-9.
Piazza, Jared, et al. "Rationalizing meat consumption. 4Ns." Appetite
91 (2015): 114-128.
Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation . London : Jonathan Cape, 1990.
Wallace, David Foster. "Consider the Lobster." Fieldnotes (2004): 50-56.
