Animal Ethics Profiling of Vegetarians, Vegans and Meat-Eaters

Abstract

30The aims of this study were to identify the animal ethical profile of vegetarians, vegans, and meat 31 eaters. Using questionnaire data collected in 2013 (N=356), we measured propensity to subscribe to 32 five different positions within animal ethics based on a novel measure of animal ethical stance 33 (adopted from the 'Animal Ethics Dilemma' learning tool). We found clear relationships between 34 diet choice and ethical profile. The responses of meat eaters indicated that they were relying on a 35 mixture of ethical positions (relational, respect for nature, contractarian, and animal rights), but 36 predominantly the utilitarian position. Propensity to hold animal rights and relational views 37 increased with the number of meat products not consumed by meat eaters. Vegans and vegetarians 38 revealed more consistent animal ethics viewpoints, especially the vegan group who had a very high 39 propensity to hold an animal rights position. Vegetarians were also inclined to hold the animal rights 40 position, but additionally had a tendency to draw on utilitarian reasoning. Subscription to animal 41 rights views was a defining characteristic of vegans regardless of the number of years they had 42 followed the diet, while this was not the case for vegetarians. Contrary to expectations, the number 43 of years a vegetarian diet had been followed was not positively associated with animal rights views. 44 This study should be followed up in a larger and more representative population, but it is the first to 45 attempt to quantitatively profile vegetarians, vegans, and meat eaters across a range of animal 46 ethics frameworks. We argue that the novel approach used to assess animal ethics stance in this 47 study could be applied to a wide range of animal related activities. 48

Animal Ethics and Eating Animals: Consumer Segmentation Based on Domain-Specific Values

“…The intensity of agreement with or rejection of animal-ethical intuitions does not seem to affect the consumption of animal source foods. Also, Lund et al revealed a clear relationship between ethical profile and diet choice [11]. In contrast to the present study, the respondents of Lund et al had to decide on exactly one ethical position in each ethical dilemma.…”

“…Therefore, the intuitions of the new contractarian approach, animal rights, and abolitionism, which are strongly represented in this segment (i.e., cluster B), do not lead to a significantly higher proportion of flexitarians, vegetarians, or vegans; rather the opposite is true: at 2.1% the proportion of vegetarians is significantly lower compared to cluster A, and also to the whole sample. Lund et al discovered similar relationships [11]. In their study, meat-eaters predominantly agreed with the utilitarian statements and, compared to vegetarians and vegans, also tended more often towards the relational approach.…”

“…Also, the right to physical integrity, often demanded in the animal rights approach [23], is frequently violated in conventional livestock farming [46,47]. Lund et al also point to the specific role of the animal rights stance in the rejection of meat consumption [11]. According to the new contractarian approach, humans should address animals' needs in the best possible way and enable them to have a good life [21].…”

Reducing meat consumption: Identifying group-specific inhibitors using latent profile analysis

“…: Find support for original scale but the importance of factors differs between European countries. Lund, McKeegan, Cribbin, & Sandøe (2016) Concerns about animal rights is an important motivation for vegans. But some vegetarians are not concerned about animal rights, they are instead health motivated.…”

Epistasis between cultural traits causes paradigm shifts in cultural evolution

“…Also, the acquisition of additional languages is facilitated by prior knowledge of two or more languages, and brings about effects in other aspects of the individuals' personal lives [11]. Other examples are the correlation between right-wing authoritarianism belief and low openness to experience [12], religious beliefs and health practices [13], or animal ethical profiles and diet choices [14].Although biological and cultural evolution do not share the same microscopic mechanisms [3], they are deeply related [15] and, often, the former have inspired the latter. Most models are suitable adaptations of those of population genetics, incorporating variants of the standard mechanisms of replication, mutation, and drift [16,17], but also-building on [4]-of branching and recombination [18].…”