✈

Hanoi fruit ladies

At the heart of the tension between meat-eating and concern for animal welfare is the experience of conflict between two dissonant attitudes. To state this formally, my belief that animals are morally relevant creatures that deserve to be protected from harm (including death) is inconsistent with my desire to eat their meat. The belief that animals should not be harmed, on its own, would predict a decision not to eat meat, yet when paired with a range of beliefs about meat-eating—that it is enjoyable, nutritional, or socially valuable—animal welfare concerns may have little influence on behavior. Nonetheless, in the context of meat-eating, animal welfare concerns create negative affect, threatening peoples’ enjoyment... It is a morally significant conflict—one that may threaten self-perception (cf. Barkan, Ayal, & Ariely, 2015; Bem, 1967; Stone & Cooper, 2001). Bringing harm to others is inconsistent with a view of oneself as a moral person (Aquino & Reed, 2002; Reed & Aquino, 2003). As such, meat consumption leads to negative affect for meat-eaters because they are confronted with a view of themselves that is unfavorable: “How can I be a good person and also eat meat?” We argue that dissonance arises when people fail to resolve this perception, and therefore feel that their beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors are at odds (see Festinger, 1957; Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959; for an account of ethical dissonance, see Barkan, Ayal, Gino, & Ariely, 2012). It is the associated negative affective state that motivates attempts to resolve dissonance.

<33

Onomichi, Hiroshima, Japan // pilsung

nailzbydianita

𝗂𝗀: 𝗃𝗎𝗅𝗂𝖺𝗇𝗇𝖺𝖼𝗂𝗍𝗅𝖺𝗅𝗂

wesame lab fw23