The Meat Paradox, Omnivore’s Akrasia, and Animal Ethics

Abstract

Simple Summary: Psychologists have used the term "meat paradox" to explain why people may emphasize their concern for animal welfare and yet eat meat, the production of which has caused suffering to nonhuman creatures. This paper explores the meat paradox through the philosophical concept "akrasia". Akrasia refers to a situation, where one believes in a fact or value x, and yet acts against that fact or value. The paper uses the term "omnivore's akrasia" to denote a state where one believes in the value of animal wellbeing and nonetheless consumes products which have caused animal suffering. The claim of the paper is that understanding of the meat paradox can be significantly broadened with the use of philosophical takes on akrasia, which underline notions such as moral reason and virtue. Another claim is that it is through enhancing one's moral ability that both the meat paradox and omnivore's akrasia may be reduced. Specific factors included in such enhancement are introduced and compared with "nudging". In the conflicting era when the meat industry is rapidly growing on a global scale whilst attitudes toward other animals are becoming increasingly positive, exploring the phenomenon of both eating and caring for animals is of clear societal, political, and moral significance.Abstract: Western cultures have witnessed an intriguing phenomenon in recent years: People are both more concerned for animal wellbeing and consume more animal products than ever before. This contradiction has been explored in psychology under the term "meat paradox". However, what has been omitted from the explorations is the age-old philosophical notion of "akrasia", within which one both knows "the good" and acts against it. The paper seeks to address this omission by comparing psychological research on the meat paradox with philosophy of akrasia. Applying Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, and Spinoza, I investigate the underlying factors of and solutions to what is here called "omnivore's akrasia". Whilst contemporary research on the meat paradox focuses on various descriptive cognitive errors (such as cognitive dissonance), philosophy of akrasia has tended to focus more prescriptively on moral reason and virtue. After discussing "nudging" as an implication of the descriptive approach, the paper supports the prescriptive perspective and "the cultivation argument". The claim is that contemporary research on the contradictions concerning attitudes toward other animals would greatly benefit from paying more attention to the value-laden mental factors underlying moral agency.

Is Eating Less Meat Possible? Exploring the Willingness to Reduce Meat Consumption among Millennials Working in Polish Cities

“…Despite extensive discussion and scientific evidence on the adverse consequences of eating meat, it is still widely consumed. People choosing to eat meat are often conflicted by the "meat paradox" [53][54][55]. They confront two opposite emotions-compassion towards animals suffering from farm and industry practices and the pleasure and habit of eating meat as an essential and even staple food in the everyday diet.…”

Exploring the Representation of Cows on Dairy Product Packaging in Brazil and the United Kingdom

“…The philosopher Elisa Aaltola highlights the relevance of the context and the cultural paradigm on human-animal relations. She evokes the ancient philosophical concept of Akrasia to refer to the paradoxes and incongruences between what people think they should do and what they really do towards animals [32]. Psychology scholars have drawn on the concept of ambivalence or moral disengagement [33,34] to explain such postures that some have called the meat paradox: a contradiction between affection, sympathy, and love for animals and the concomitant exploitation, operation, and use of them [7,10,16].…”

Effects of a documentary on consumer perception of the environmental impact of meat consumption

“…At the same time, several studies report an attitude-or intention-behaviour gap that could possibly be explained as a consequence of moral disengagement due to the unwillingness to reduce meat consumption (Graça et al, 2015(Graça et al, , 2014. The cognitive dissonance between liking animals (as living creatures) and liking animals (as food) is discussed as the "meat-paradox" (Aaltola, 2019;Bastian and Loughnan, 2017). In the practice of eating meat, that moral conflict has shown to be solved by moral disengagement (Benningstad and Kunst, 2020).…”