Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
One question examined in the psychology of eating meat has been termed the meat paradox: "How can individuals care about animals, but also eat them?" [ 48 ] [ 49 ] Internal dissonance can be created if people's beliefs and emotions about animal treatment do not match their eating behavior, although it may not always be subjectively perceived as ...
Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism is a 2009 book by American social psychologist Melanie Joy about the belief system and psychology of meat eating, or "carnism". [1]
There is experimental evidence supporting the idea that the meat paradox induces cognitive dissonance in Westerners. [ 9 ] [ 25 ] [ 26 ] Westerners are more willing to eat animals which they regard as having lesser mental capacities and moral standing, and conversely, to attribute lesser mental faculties and moral standing to animals which are ...
While meat eaters may have an inner conflict about the killing of animals for their food, this explanation of vegaphobia may not hold up to environmental reasons for avoiding meat. Environmentalist meat eaters may not see a conflict in eating meat because they see their individual environmental impact of meat consumption as low.
Meat paradox: People care about animals, but embrace diets that involve harming them. Moral paradox : A situation in which moral imperatives clash without clear resolution. Outcomes paradox : Schizophrenia patients in developing countries seem to fare better than their Western counterparts.
Depiction of Porphyry from the Tree of Jesse at the Sucevița Monastery, 1535. On Abstinence from Eating Animals [a] (Koinē Greek: Περὶ ἀποχῆς ἐμψύχων, romanized: Peri apochēs empsychōn, Latin: De abstinentia ab esu animalium) is a 3rd-century treatise by Porphyry on the ethics of vegetarianism.
This was due to the fact that the psychology field desired to present itself as science oriented, and pushed for 'evidence based' approaches. Since the underlying theory and mechanism for the paradoxical approach had remained an 'unsolved mystery', there was no way to promote the method in a concise and logical manner.
Animal rights writer Henry S. Salt termed the replaceability argument the "logic of the larder".. In 1789, the utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham endorsed a variant of the argument, contending that painlessly killing a nonhuman animal is beneficial for everyone because it does not harm the animal and the consumers of the meat produced from the animal's body are better off as a result.