Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
A 2016 review drew an analogy between the meat paradox and sexual objectification, writing that both practices involve strategically changing perceptions of others when thinking of them as potential "resources" (i.e., for meat or sex), and citing 2010s studies suggesting that sexually objectifying people prompts a reduction in their perceived ...
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] Joy coined the term carnism in 2001 and developed it in her doctoral dissertation in 2003.
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 ...
Meat-eating can involve discrepancies between the behavior of eating meat and various ideals that the person holds. [47] Some researchers call this form of moral conflict the meat paradox . [ 48 ] [ 49 ] Hank Rothgerber posited that meat eaters may encounter a conflict between their eating behavior and their affections toward animals. [ 47 ]
"The Meat Eaters" is a 2010 essay by the American philosopher Jeff McMahan, published as an op-ed in The New York Times.In the essay, McMahan asserts that humans have a moral obligation to stop eating meat and, in a conclusion considered to be controversial, that humans also have a duty to prevent predation by individuals who belong to carnivorous species, if we can do so without inflicting ...
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.
David DeGrazia (born July 20, 1962) [1] is an American moral philosopher specializing in bioethics, animal ethics, and the study of moral status.He is Professor of Philosophy at George Washington University, where he has taught since 1989, and the author or editor of several books on ethics, including Taking Animals Seriously: Mental Life and Moral Status (1996), Human Identity and Bioethics ...
Porphyry advocates for vegetarianism on both spiritual and ethical grounds, applying arguments from his own school of Neoplatonism to counter those in favor of meat-eating from the Stoic, Peripatetic, and Epicurean schools. Porphyry argues that there is a moral obligation to extend justice to animals because they are rational beings.