Ad
related to: meat paradox psychology today definition
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The psychology of eating meat is an area of study seeking to illuminate the ... A 2016 review drew an analogy between the meat paradox and sexual ...
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 ...
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.
Preston Cabral eats meat nearly every day at home, but his favorite meals at school are served on “Meatless Mondays” and “Vegan Fridays.” “Today I ate chips, tangerines and this thing ...
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]
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.
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.
I agree that carnism theorists only pay attention to a subset of meat psychology (‘’viz.’’ the meat paradox and mechanisms for its resolution), and tend to interpret it in a way consistent with the disputed ethical premise that meat-eating is ordinarily immoral. Our carnism article reflects this, appropriately, per WP:DUE and WP:OPINION.