top of page
This site was designed with the
.com
website builder. Create your website today.Start Now

A matter of inconsistency


By Whoistheroach - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=75040559


In 2019, there were approximately 1.3 million vegans in Germany (Skopos, 2019). The total population of Germany is 83.02 million people. The research institute Skopos (2019) estimates that approximately 1 billion humans follow vegetarian or vegan diets worldwide. The increasing number of available vegan products has made it easier for people to switch their diets (Mintel, 2018). Dietetic bodies – such as the British Nutrition Foundation, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the Dietitians of Canada, the Direccao-Geral de Saude (Portugal), and the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (USA) – have confirmed that a 100% plant-based diet is possible at all stages of life (Rittenau, 2019).

Pictures of animals suffering on industrial farms are regularly shown in newspapers and on television in Germany (RTL, 2020). In 2018, four slaughterhouses in Germany were permanently closed due to animal cruelty (Guettel, 2018). Additionally, in 2019, a farmer received a three-year prison sentence for animal cruelty for killing his pigs with a sledgehammer and was found to have kept them inhumanely (Zeit Online, 2019). All these cases were discovered and made public through the efforts of various small animal protection groups. This could suggest that similar cases exist which have not yet been made public.

Besides animal cruelty concerns, there are other criticisms associated with industrial animal farming, such as its effect on the environment. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2019) confirmed that the high consumption of animal products in the western world contributes significantly to climate change. Animal agriculture uses an enormous amount of resources, and with a growing world population, that usage seems likely to continue increasing (Knight, 2010). Researchers also have concerns about the 6th mass extinction happening currently. `These super-fed crops are fed, highly efficiently, to farm animals, that we eat in turn. The scale of this operation is a large reason for the scale of the ongoing mass extinction of other organisms´ (Zalasiewizc, 2015, [online]).

Furthermore, there are increasing concerns regarding health problems linked to the animal agriculture industry. This includes resistance to antibiotics and infections of Bovine Milk and Meat Factors (BMMF) in humans caused by consuming animal products. Alarmingly, Hausen et al. (2019:1) state: `Red meat and dairy products are currently considered as risk factors for colon, breast, lung, and a few additional cancers.´




Inconsistency in human attitudes to different animal species

The impact of the rising interest in animal welfare from the public is apparent in many countries' legislation. For example, the European Union has phased out eggs from hens kept in cage production in 2012. Even outside Europe, there is progress in this direction, albeit much slower. Like the Israeli Supreme Court, which has outlawed the fattening of gooses on farms, arguing that it violates their animal cruelty prevention laws (Singer, 2002). While progress towards the better treatment of animals is positive, there is still a question largely ignored in political discussion and many studies: whether killing animals is justified in any manner given the scientific knowledge about animals and the larger overall effects of animal consumption. For example, 85.1% of Germans agreed (43.3%) or wholeheartedly agreed (41.8%) that animals should have a good life before being slaughtered (Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, 2018). Here, the difference between the animal welfare view and the animal rights view becomes apparent, as, in the animal welfare view, it is acceptable to use animals for most human purposes, as long as there is a `sincere attempt to maximize their welfare and minimize their suffering and pain' (Shani and Pizam, 2007:681). What is acceptable depends largely on the species. While most of these studies do not question the slaughtering itself, if the animals involved are of specific species, western people tend to behave differently. For example, the Yulin dog meat festival in China horrifies people all over the world. Most individuals, especially in western nations, are entirely opposed to it. The Shut Down the Yulin Dog Meat Festival! petition on Change.org has accumulated 4,109,072 signatures from its start in 2017 to today (status 16th September 2020; Change.org, 2017).

However, in contrast to the animal welfare concerns regarding farm animals, no petitions ask for bigger cages for the dogs or that the dogs have the ability to have a good life before slaughter. In this case, the western public never discusses the need for a humane killing method. Instead, they want this practice to stop altogether, as it seems they do not find eating dog meat acceptable, perhaps even if it had an animal welfare label. The animal rights movement view is to treat animals more equally, as argued by Regan (1985: 13), `(providing) more space …won't eliminate – will not even touch – the basic wrong that attaches to our viewing and treating these animals as our resources.'

When meat-eaters where asked why they think people become vegetarians, only 36% (40% of women and 31% of men) mentioned animal welfare (Lea and Worsley, 2003). However, as mentioned in the introduction, the concern for animal welfare is the main reason why people become vegetarian or vegan. This could suggest that some people have a mental disconnect between farm animals and their food choices, so they do not consider a desire to reduce animal deaths and cruelty as a main motivator for change for existing vegans and vegetarians. The next part of this review addresses the psychology that may be involved in these speculative viewpoints and considers how people justify paying for the killing of specific animal species.





Psychology

Serpell, professor of Animal Ethics and Welfare at the University of Pennsylvania (2009:636) states,

…it is possible that, deep down, all of us are (or once were) disgusted by animal exploitation but that most of us—all but the most disgust prone—have either been desensitized by prolonged exposure to social and cultural norms that legitimize such practices, or are more adept at compartmentalizing our feelings toward potential objects of our sympathy.

Serpell is also referring to an inner resistance to acknowledging animals as sentient beings, especially in farmers, scientists, and hunters. This, he argues, is because an acceptance that there is an inconsistency between how we handle animals and our belief that animals have intrinsic worth and are conscious beings would require a complete change of our society and food system. Denying that animals are conscious is a way of making their suffering and life less significant and, therefore, justifies exploiting and harming them (Serpell, 2009). This process, also discussed by Bandura (1990, 1999) and Vollum et al. (2004), is known as moral disengagement. Bandura (1999) explains that this a subconscious belief system that has been used throughout history when humans exploited others.


The creation of belief systems

Piazza et al. (2015) focused their research on humans who empathize with animals but are still eating meat. Their study suggests that these animal lovers did not change their behaviour, but instead, they created a belief system that justified their consumption of meat. It seems that this is what the vast majority of society may also be doing, because most humans still eat meat despite results indicating that they care about animal welfare (European Commission, 2007; Compassion in World Farming and Eurogroup for Animals, 2018; Masson, 2018; Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, 2018). Different ways of creating these belief systems have been found. For example, those who deny the suffering of animals raised for food might assume that these animals are mentally diminished or mindless. By this process, animals are made unworthy of moral consideration (Bratanova et al., 2011).

Nevertheless, even if these systems are created subconsciously, they seem to evoke feelings linked to the inconsistency. This is suggested in a study by Minson and Monin (2012), who found that meat-eaters often feel uncomfortable around vegetarians. This could be because vegetarians and vegans pose a threat to their created belief systems and provide evidence that other choices are possible. Of course, for some people, there may be other reasons they feel uncomfortable, such as past negative experiences with people who are vegans or vegetarians. Potentially, when it is a person who decides to be vegetarian or vegan for ethical reasons, this may mean the meat-eater feels judged by their presence and the conflicting values represented by their food choices. Alternatively, it may bring up subconscious feels of guilt (Piazza et al., 2015). In accordance with this theory, psychologist Melanie Joy (2010) described the ‘Four Ns of Justification’. These Ns have been used throughout history to rationalize practices like slavery or sexism. The four Ns are natural, normal, necessary, and nice. People applying these beliefs to animal products' consumption might believe that it is natural to consume animal products, because humankind has done it for thousands of years, and that it is normal, because most people on this planet eat meat, which could be why a vegan or vegetarian at the table could be considered a threat to their justification. Additionally, under the four Ns, some may believe it is necessary to eat meat, because humans need to consume animal products to get the required nutrients, and that it is nice, because it tastes good. Joy (2010) states that these Ns are not questioned, as ideologies remain until enough people become concerned about them and begin to consider the logic behind the arguments. Accordingly, a study in 2015 found that 83–91% of people used these Ns to justify their meat consumption (Piazza et al., 2015).




Justification

It is essential to identify and analyse the forces behind the shaping of attitudes, as well as consider the specific social context of those interviewed. Pets are popular in Germany. In 2018, there were 34.3 million of them in the country, one pet in almost every second household, and the number is increasing (Industrieverband Heimtierbedarf, 2018). Studies have found that growing-up or living with pets leads to more sympathy and identification with animals in general (Paul and Serpell, 1993; Serpell, 2005). It is, therefore, likely that moral disengagement is present in many sectors of society. Although most Germans seem to love pets and, therefore, likely have empathy for other animals, a vast number (given that only 1.6% of Germans are vegan) have accepted their contribution to the killing of other animal species through the purchase and consumption of animal products. Furthermore, they are often supporting systems of cruelty to animals, such as the tail-docking of pigs; confining pregnant sows, so that they cannot turn around; and debeaking chickens (Farm Animal Welfare Council, 2009). Supporting these systems and practices seems at odds with the characteristics of a society that seemingly loves animals.

The FAWC (2009:4) tries to provide an explanation for the treatment of farm animals:

These definitions of good welfare do not place an explicit moral value on maintaining or extending the lifespan of a farm animal. This is not necessarily the case for other animals; many owners of companion animals place a high value on keeping animals alive. There is disagreement as to the moral significance of the quantity – i.e. duration – of life for farm animals. On the one hand it seems to many people to be common sense that healthy animals, experiencing a good quality of life, lose out by having their lives prematurely terminated. On the other hand, farm animals clearly cannot imagine the future to anything like the extent that humans can. In that sense, it is widely held that they lose very little by having their lives prematurely terminated so long, of course, as that is done humanely.

It may touch upon it; however, the above quote has not explained why there is inconsistency in the accepted treatment of different animal species. The justification of claiming that an animal cannot imagine the future like humans can, and therefore is losing very little, would be also true for companion animals, as well as mentally diminished people and young children who also may have little concept of future. However, society would likely be shocked and empathic if something inhumane or cruel happened to these other groups, because they are considered as vulnerable and innocent. Therefore, this attempt to explain humans' treatment of animals still fails to clarify the inconsistency within it. The FAWC (2009:12) explains further:

For his own well-being, man may, and sometimes must, make use of animals, but that he has a moral obligation to ensure, within reasonable limits, that the animal’s health and welfare is in each case not unnecessarily put at risk.

It is unlikely that most parts of society must rely on animals for survival in the western world. However, here, FAWC states it could be for their ‘well-being’, which is more open to interpretation. For example, perhaps someone may like meat from an animal more than a burger made from peas. In such a situation, eating meat could be considered as enhanced well-being by using animals. However, this poses the question could taking the life of an animal be justified by stating greater wellbeing is achieved for the person consuming the animal? With other vulnerable groups, such as animals which are considered pets, people with disabilities, or children, the moral values seem vastly different. In such situations, it is feasible to consider that the victim and their losses should also be considered, valued, and contrasted against the perceived benefits. In these instances, simply increased well-being, which is difficult to explicitly define, seems to be a weak moral justification for taking a life.






References

Bandura, A. (1990) Selective activation and disengagement of moral control. Journal of Social Issues,

46, (1), 27-46. Available at: http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Bandura/Bandura1990JSI.pdf. [Accessed 27 April 2020].


Bandura, A. (1999) Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social


Bratanova, B., Loughnan, S. and Bastian, B. (2011) The effect of categorization as food on the

perceived moral standing of animals. Appetite, 57, 193-196. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0195666311001413. [Accessed 29 April 2020].



Change.org (2017) Shut Down the Yulin Dog Meat Festival! Available at:


Compassion in World Farming and Eurogroup for Animals. (2018) To what extent do you agree with

the statement: "Animal welfare is an issue that I care about"?*. Available at: https://www-statista-com.winchester.idm.oclc.org/statistics/909900/concern-about-animal-welfare-in-the-netherlands/. [Accessed 25 June 2020].


European Commission (2007) Attitudes of EU citizens towards Animal Welfare. Brussels: Special

Eurobarometer. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs_270_en.pdf. [Accessed 4 May 2020].


Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) (2009) Farm Animal Welfare in Great Britain: Past, present and



Guettel, I. (2018) Neuer Skandal um Schlachthof [New scandal around slaughterhouse].

Hannoversche Allgemeine Zeitung, Wednesday, 7 March, 7.

Hamilton, M. (2006) Eating death. Vegetarians, meat, and violence. Food, Culture and Society, 9, (2), 155-177. Available at: https://foodethics.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/inst_ethik_wiss_dialog/Hamilton__Malcolm_2006._Eating_death._vegetarianism__meat_and_violence.pdf. [Accessed 30 April 2020].


Hausen, H., Bund, T. and de Villiers, E.M. (2019) Specific nutritional infections early in life as risk

factors for human colon and breast cancers several decades later. International Cancer Journal, 144, 1574-`583. Available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ijc.31882. [Accessed 30 March 2019].



Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung (2018) Fleischatlas [Meat atlas]. Available at:


Industrieverband Heimtierbedarf (2018) Significant growth in number of pets in Germany.

Available at: https://file-service.nuernbergmesse.de/. [Accessed 27 April 2020].


Joy, M. (2010) Why we Love Dogs, Eat Pigs and Wear Cows. San Francisco: Conari Press.


Knight, A. (2010) Livestock casts long shadow over climate debate. Veterinary Times. Available at:


Lea, E. and Worsley, A. (2003) Benefits and barriers to the consumption of a vegetarian diet in

Australia. Public Health Nutrition, 6, (5), 505-511. Available at: https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://scholar.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=2035&context=sspapers. [Accessed 30 April 2020].


Minson, J.A. and Monin, B. (2012) Do-gooder derogation. Disparaging morally motivated minorities

to defuse anticipated reproach. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, (2), 200–207. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1948550611415695. [Accessed 29 April 2020].


Mintel (2018) Deutschland dominiert weiterhin bei veganen Produkteinführungen [Germany is still

dominating the market of new launched vegan products]. Available at: https://de.mintel.com/pressestelle/deutschland-dominiert-weiterhin-bei-veganen-produkteinfuehrungen. [Accessed 24 April 2020].


Paul, E.S. and Serpell, J.A. (1993) Childhood pet keeping and humane attitudes in young adulthood.



Piazza, J., Ruby, M.B., Loughnan, S., Luong, M., Kulik, J., Watkins, H.M. and Seigerman, M. (2015)

Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns. Appetite, 91, 114-128. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0195666315001518. [Accessed 29 April 2020].


Regan, T. (1985) The case for animal rights. In: Singer, P. (ed.) Defense of Animals. New York:

Blackwell, 13-26.


RTL (2020) Katastrophale Zustände: SOKO Tierschutz deckt Tierquälerei in Stuttgarter Schlachthof auf

[Catastrophic conditions: SOKO Tierschutz uncovers animal cruelty in a slaughterhouse in Stuttgart]. Available at: https://www.rtl.de/cms/stuttgart-tierquaelerei-in-schlachthof-soko-tierschutz-zeigt-schock-aufnahmen-4605134.html. [Accessed 15 September 2020].


Rittenau, N. (2019) Vegan Klischee Ade [Goodbye Vegan Cliche]. Hilden, Germany: Becker Joest Volk.


Serpell, J.A. (2005) Factors influencing veterinary students’ career choices, and attitudes to animals.


Serpell, J.A. (2009) Having our dogs and eating them too: Why animals are a social issue. Journal of


Shani, A. and Pizam, A. (2007) Towards an ethical framework for animal-based attractions.


Singer, P. (2002) Animal Liberation. New York: Avon.


Skopos (2019) 1,3 Millionen Deutsche leben vegan [1.3 million Germans are living vegan]. Available


The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2019) Climate change and land. Available at:

https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/. [Accessed 21 April 2020].


Vollum, S., Buffington-Vollum, J. and Longmire, D.R. (2004) Moral disengagement and attitudes

about violence toward animals. Society and Animals, 12, 209-236. Available at: https://www.animalsandsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/vollum.pdf [Accessed 27 April 2020].cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc


Zalasiewizc, J. (2015) The Earth stands on the brink of its sixth mass extinction and the fault is ours.


Zeit Online (2019) Schweinezüchter muss wegen Tierquälerei ins Gefängnis [Pig farmer has to go to

jail because of animal cruelty]. Available at: https://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2019-03/ulm-tierquaelerei-schweinezuechter-merklingen-massentierhaltung-urteil. [Accessed 30 March 2019].


Recent Posts
Archive
bottom of page