PLEASE NOTE: this isn't a video about being vegan - I am not vegan and I ate the very sausage roll in question after filming with it 😈 This video is about exploring moral decision making, it's about recognising the contradictions in our own behaviour and being less critical of others, too. I know this strikes a chord in some people who feel strongly about either eating meat or being vegan, etc. This is just one example, fast fashion is another that shows how money can complicate our morality too. We're not saying anything is "right" or "wrong" - just that a lot of people behave in a way they consider "wrong" and create post-hoc excuses to justify how it is right for them. I find cognitive dissonance (and the Festinger study with the spools) FASCINATING and I hope you'll finish watching this video having learned more about it. And thank you for watching! I really respect Dr. Shaw's work and it was lovely to be able to speak with her.
I think morality is not a rigid thing. We wax and wane as we go through the day. I don't think many people have their values written down, or ever take the time to evaluate them. So that lack of discipline and visualization allows room for dissonance and inconsistency. Lovely video. Per ush, keep up the good work.
Great! Would have hated that the sacrifice of the animal would have been in vain. I think the issue at hand is not the sacrifice of the animals, but the crazily money driven people who abuse and torture those living creatures without any respect for their sacrifice. That is what must be put to an end! with education (to wish your videos are an important contribute), with the demand to the politicians we elect to increase the control on animal farms in the territory we live in, and inspire to produce laws to prohibit the import of those regions who don't, and of course to each owns responsibility to stop animal torture whenever we see it. if money dictates the mass production, will also dictate their access to the market, and consequent profit. In my perspective, all living things are a spectacularly beautiful jackpot, and can't label the vegetables to be less impressive and less worthy of respect as the fish I had for lunch; so to put them on a scale and state what is more worth living, is of a very overwhelming anthropocentric arrogance. And one day ill be something else's lunch. Thank you for your beautiful video!
Yeah. I've noticed just as much cognitive dissonance (although I am not sure if that's the right term for this here) in vegans that I've known personally. It's impossible to have no animals die to produce food or clothing, so what they more seem to generally focus on is a concept of "contamination".
1. A person finds a hurt bird in their garden -> they adopt it and try to help it recover. 2. The same person eats chicken every day -> causes mass suffering of birds. (which contradicts 1.) 3. The same person takes a strong moral stance defending both of these actions. This is an alternatively phrased analogy for the cognitive dissonance phenomenon.
The example is flawed, the bird is alive and reacts to human interactions but the chicken is most likely already dead so you don't have the slightest emotional care for that chicken but the bird is something '''special''" it probably got a name as well and the owner is emotionally invested.
@@witzprinz4766 That's the exact point of the paradox. You care about the bird you find, you even think of it as something special. But the chicken, although going through massive suffering, you do not care.
Karl E If I bought a stack of papers, I would care about and make the most out of those papers. If someone else destroys a stack of papers that they own, I wouldn’t care at all. There is no dissonance.
@@kuchenjaeger2164 indeed bred to be eaten and held in captivity. how do you feel between free range meat and factory meat? would you prefer to eat an animal that has enjoyed its captive life, or one that has been standing in a small, intensely crowded room knee deep in its own shit (all to save money and space)?
@@itskelvinn "guilt-tripping: make (someone) feel guilty, especially in order to induce them to do something." Yes, it is, by definition, guilt-tripping.
I disagree with the premise of "If you think animals are cute you should be vegan, or you are engaging in cognitive dissonance" (And I'm just paraphrasing). That premise is really a straw-man. I can be completely cognizant that I find pets cute, I can even find some chicken cute... and yet see no problem with eating it. I found fruits that are "cute" as well... and have no problem eating them too. It's not cognitive dissonance. I don't disassociate the two... If we follow that premisse to the fullest... it's would be cognitive dissonance to love a human being and wanting a pedophile to be put in jail.
I totally get your point Mateus - I think the "cute animals" explanation is simplifying the original premise, it was how you feel about animals suffering when they are slaughtered to provide meat for you. From the research paper: We term the apparent psychological conflict between people’s dietary preference for meat and their moral response to animal suffering “the meat-paradox” (Loughnan, Haslam, & Bastian, 2010) Does that change anything?
OK. So I totally eat meat and I'm not disagreeing with u completely. But I still feel like there's a flaw in your analogy. A pedophile has done a lot of harm to, and inflicted trauma on someone. And putting them in jail is definitely justifiable as punishment. But most of the animals that are used to make meat products are domesticated and would not have done harm to anyone, and most of the harm would be done to that animal itself. So comparing those two would be slightly nonsensical. That being said, I do agree with some of the points that you're making and I mean, I do eat meat, so I can't really condemn you to vegan hell or something lol
Mateus Bittencourt I think the cognitive dissonance that people talk about with meat comes more from the fact that animals are sentient and can feel pain, as opposed to just being “cute”. The majority of people would not hurt or kill an innocent animal, but have no problem eating meat 2-3 times a day, because they don’t make the connection that a living animal had to die for their meal. Maybe for some, it’s about “cuteness” but I think those who claim cognitive dissonance are talking about the physical pain / suffering and slaughtering of an animal upon which that individual would not have hurt themselves.
The actual line is just paraphrasing. You can use other concepts such as how electronic parts tend to be made in brutal conditions that we would reject, but we like the results of it. You can't just gloss off the issue and say "why do they do this?" When they are doing it for your benefit. The goal is to come to terms with it by either accepting that it is ok for the event to happen or deeming it not ok to benefit from it. Note that saying " it's ok for cute animals to suffer and die" is over such option. Even accepting that you are doing wrong and still doing it is an option as well. The issue is that many don't break the dissidence. They either hide from the unpleasant elements and ignore it or find some cop out so they can continue to say that they killing or exploiting is wrong but they are still moral because.... They don't have a choice or there's nothing they can do or their case is special or something like that. Of course the moral situation gets murkier when it comes to things like food, but you need to come to terms with the situation first. You can still eat soilant green. Just know what you are actually eating.
I'd say instead that your distilling of her argument down to the animals just being cute is the real strawman here. She specifically mentioned it was about torture and deplorable conditions in factory farms - systematic neglect, mistreatment, and torture of millions of animals that are capable of feeling and understanding pain. She also mentioned human suffering in factories making clothing.
The problem is that everyone believe in incompatible things, this is part of being human - believe in things that do not fit together and try to find a way to fit them. Not believing in a contradictory things is not the solution because sooner or later you will found that some of the things you believes do not fit together.
It's easy to claim what you'd do in a hypothetical situation, but most humans when faced with having to kill something with their own bare hands, would choose to eat something else. Otherwise you'd have to go through the trouble of skinning it, draining its blood, deboning it, removing it's organs, cleaning the body & its shithole, cutting it, and all the while wretching from the stench. But it's still not palatable bc we're not drawn to the natural taste of meat. So you'd still have to tenderize it, marinate it, & season it. And even then, still not palatable bc we're not drawn to the natural texture of meat. So then you have to cook it. Which means you have to find wood & build a fire. That's alot of work. If it were me, I'd make that animal my new buddy & figure out how it's surviving & just eat whatever fruit/veg its living on. No blood, no stench, no tryna build a stove. Just me & my new buddy.
The actual better reason not to eat meat (or at least eat less of it) is because of the huge amount of ressources needed to grow them the way we do it, meaning contributing significantly to deforestation in 'developing' countries, soil pollution and people poisoning (glyphosate).
Coffee , soy and palm production all individually cause more deforestation than meat production. And plant cultivation is the #1 cause of pesticides polluting water supplies.
@@zutaca2825 hey, whatever you gotta believe to justify your herbavore diet. It's just a fallacy to think a veggie diet is better for the Earth or humanity. The science and research just doesn't support it. You'll notice that any study claiming an all vegetarian planet is a good thing is paid for by special interest groups. The propaganda is real and you're buying into it.
@@ryanhatesgirls indeed, but what do we use soy for? 3/4 goes to feeding animals. Palm kernel expeller is also a source of protein for animals. And many animals drink coffee nowadays... Well, maybe not :)
If you stop buying from companies that you KNOW are taking advantage of the poor (regardless of the price) they'd be forced to change their ways. Where you spend your money is the most powerful vote you can cast.
Having seen, first-hand in many cases, how other predatory animals (forward facing eyes, carnivorous/omnivorous teeth, etc) kill and eat their food. In nearly every case that I have personally witnessed, death came slowly, painfully, and with a lot of violence; oftentimes animals were being consumed before they'd even died! I also worked a dairy farm in my youth and had occasion to be at a slaughter house--a gruesome place to be sure--and I saw, again first-hand, how the HUMAN animal kills other animals. From what I personally witnessed, the cows are corralled into chutes where they are eventually pithed by a small (about .22 caliber) rod. The cows die instantly. The cows were easily managed and moved into and along chutes just like they did at the dairy farm we owned. A friend who worked there said they treated their cows pretty much the same way we treated ours, and for admittedly the same reason, you want to keep a 2,000 pound beast as calm and manageable as possible. It seems that humans often ARE the most humane of the animal kingdom.
There are SO MANY really great meat substitutes these days that this shouldn't really be a problem anymore. Jackfruit, mushrooms, seitan, tempeh, the beyond burger, even Greggs in the UK has a vegan sausage roll now! Just to name a few examples. Align with your morals, it's easier now than ever :)
@@justsomenerd8925there is some disagreement in science about that. Many say it was actually likely starches and agriculture, not specifically meat because our brains are made up of exactly that - fats. Plenty of meat eaters out that didn’t evolve to us. Regardless, if doing something morally wrong were to advance us - I’d say you would almost always be on the right side of history by finding a alternative and doing what is morally better than slaughtering, cruelly exploiting, and/or torturing others when u don’t have to
I enjoyed how you guys presented the original Festinger study. Well done!! But I think it's important to disentangle dissonance from when something isn't cognitively available/salient. The fast fashion example comes to mind: The way that we consume fashion separates us from knowing the bad way it came about (how the sausage was made, as it were). Even if we "know" about it when we purchase the clothing (as in, it was a fact we can recall when asked), that information may not me cognitively available when making the purchasing decision. It's only dissonance when we're aware of the "bad thing" and we do it anyways as opposed to simply having the knowledge that it's bad tucked somewhere in our brain. Great video though! Really love how it was all presented.
Morally I have no leaning towards eating meat or not. The issue becomes that the convenience and simplicity of a diet of meat and vegetables; financially, availability, and nutritionally, is why I continue to eat meat. I have a lot of things in a day I deal with and while I would just as easily eat chicken thighs over rice and steamed vegetables as I would with baked tofu the same, the issue is that meat is easy, meat is readily available, meat have nutritional value that I did not need to delve into the study for balance for my diet. The effort has become the factor, I can literally walk to a restaurant and get a cheeseburger. But getting good vegerarian food with out effort is difficult. I have cute little animals but it is more about my health and time than it is if I think it is cruel or not. It is normalized and convenient.
"stop buying cheap clothes" ok, give me money so I can buy designer rags which were made in the exact same conditions that the cheap clothes was made in
*All is one, one is all* _we consume other lives to be alive, If we die we become food to other lives. It's a cruel and random world, but the chaos is all so beautiful._
You don't need to pay for animals to be slaughtered so you can live when you have other options like vegetables, fruits, legumes, grains, nuts, seeds. There are no essential nutrients that you find only in animal products.
I didn't like approach of the video to the "be respectful of others opinions" I think meat consumption and the moral ambiguity of it are two whole different topics. For example. I'm from Mexico. The culture I was raised in shows respect for the things we eat, I've killed chickens of pigs for the food we consume. I'm not "experiencing" meat from afar. I know what it takes for me to get the diatary needs. My moral alignment may differ from what's usual.
My first thought was about how, as a hunter, I've seen an animal go from breathing to being served up on a plate. I prefer to have someone else do it, but I don't have any problem. But I think what they were getting at was heavier on the way the farmed animals are treated. Following through to the other examples: buying cheap clothing isn't bad - buying cheap clothing that you know was made in miserable conditions is bad. So you think, "terrible there are people in those conditions" and "oohh, such a good price" and that is the dissonance.
@Sandcastle • I also have killed many animals for food. And I have pet dogs. And I have killed them when they grew old and began to suffer. And I have no moral objection to eating dog meat (or even human meat for that matter) because meat is just a material resource. Do you have a pet dog? Do you feed it animal-based food? If so, then you are a hypocrite. If not, then you are still a hypocrite because you are harming your dog's health as dogs are obligate carnivores and must eat some meat in their diet for good health. I have killed many animals in my life both to feed my family, and to put animals out of their suffering. The only reason I would not eat my dog is because my dog fills a different role in my life, and when it is old enough that I must kill it ("put it to sleep" as they will say in the business, but killing is killing) then by that point it will no longer be good for eating. When I breed and raise animals for food, they have a charmed life, free from parasites, sheltered from the weather, all the food they want to eat and an abundance of variety, they are well-groomed and get plenty of interaction, they do not have to worry about being agonizingly ripped apart by a predator and eaten alive like their wild counterparts. And when it is time to harvest, they get an extra nice treat, a little thank-you for providing sustenance to my family. Then, their happy life ends instantly and painlessly without any fear or discomfort to them at all. Every living thing will die. I hope with all my heart that the universe is as kind to me when my time comes as I am to the animals I have raised and cared for, whether for meat or for companionship.
I would still eat the saussage roll because of another aspect at play: information bias. I will try to make this brief: First, abusing animals has been shown to lead to mental instability. As farmers and butchers are not more likely to have violent tendancies, they must adhere to the humanitarian guidelines peovided to them preventing torture. Thus the statement provided can only be true if the person submitting the info would know this first hand. As this would constitute a written confession of allowing/commiting acts against the established guidelines (which are laws), they would be incarserating themselves for no reason. So occam's razor would conclude that the note must be a lie. But why lie? Well, occam's razor answers this again since the most likely reason someone would lie to create a moral delema would be to push an agenda. Ergo, the information provided is a lie that relies on the bias of our laziness of considering all written statements as fact. To counter this, enjoy the saussage slowly with audible moans of pure bliss.
I have no emotional connection to animals, the meat paradox is only a paradox as long as you value animal the same way you value humans, or if you value all animal the same way. My take on it is easy : animals are not meant for anything and we have the right to do whatever we want with them. Be that eating, cuddling or feeding them.
@@Erikakicute there's the short term and there's the long term. and we're hard wired to think in the short term. the short term says that food on your plate will be tossed in the trash if you do not eat it, meaning you will need to eat something else to get those nutrients, meaning the expenditure of food is double, and there are people in this world who starve. making it morally wrong to toss the food. anyway frouto you're going after the wrong people (all you vegans are) you need to go after the source of the meat, not the people eating it. you need to protest the cruel methods used to save money at the expense of the animals physical and mental health. the least we can do for them is to make their life in captivity an enriching one, and if that is deemed too expensive (it is not, companies are just greedy) then we shouldn't be doing it at all. and you need to protest it in a better way than being a keyboard warrior, there are many vegans and other sympathetic people, pool your resources, make a change, improve the world. telling people they're doing something wrong is not going to have an impact.
@@Kalleosini i don't go for anyone. I just mentioned somehting really simple. One question, how do you help the animals live better lives in captivity as you said?
@@Erikakicute I don't but I don't need to, really, we have a lot of free range animals where I'm from. it could be better for sure, but it is not my hill to die on, I've chosen another.
To me, consistency is important. I'm consciously aware of cognitive dissonance, and I often catch myself being a hypocrite before anyone else gets a chance to call me out on it. However, despite the fact I'm not vegan, I don't need to be: the problem at hand is _abused_ animals. I don't have a problem eating meat from something that didn't live a tortured life. I also like Shaw's example of shopping at stores where you're unhappy with underpaid workers. But even then, just know your brands. You can still shop at a place like Walmart and not have your money go to near-slave workers in China, as long as you know which brands don't do such things. Of course, there are moments in life where you can't avoid going against your morals, at which point, I just accept (for myself) I'm doing the wrong thing and deserve whatever comes my way.
1:43 this is the exact problem. You've separated "animals" and "others". Animals are others. They are sentient beings with their own thoughts and feelings. We will begin to make progress when we realise humans aren't the only beings who deserve to be free from unnecessary pain.
When you live in a city you can think of all kinds of stuff about meat and animals, but in the country we see how these animals are raised and how they are treated. I have even worked in the Meat industry both with chickens and beef, it is quite the aspersion to insist that mistreatment of animals is 'normal' or 'the standard.'
Easy, make the sausages out of ugly but delicious animals. However make the animals by overly sensitive to pain and over expressive of their suffering.
We are all inconsistent beings. And when we can not behave better, we can be more understanding of others and treat them better so, be nice. It is wonderful message
Because it brings me pleasure. Everything I do is based around that, hell I give it precedence over literally anything else. Hell even helping my friends and family is done because it makes me feel good. Sure, society would collapse if everybody adapted my forward thinking approach but hey.
A lot of paradoxes are created by using overly narrow definitions or too few factors in consideration when dealing with them. You can look at things like the bald man paradox, the liar Paradox and the ship of Theseus paradox and resolve them by being more careful with your definitions and expanding the factors you consider. I think this is the case here also and there multiple layers. Paradox starts to go away when we recognize that our moral system is developed in a social context and our personal relationships have profound effects because morality developed as a way to resolve conflicts and promote cooperation. We care more about beings that we have a personal relationship with and whether or not the lack of universality pleases or displeases you has nothing to do with whether or not that is the nature of morality. We have much stronger personal relationships with the cute animals around us. We have much weaker relationships with the animals that former food. And as the philosopher sits in her comfortable apartment she doesn't realize that the mere existence of our house, the vegetable she eats, almost everything she does in her life kills other organisms including many animals. Yes things like organic farming, building a home, even maintaining a home make sure that animals are smashed, rendered limb from limb and starved to death. So unfortunately it's a paradox is based on a profound misunderstanding that morality is not a physical property of this universe but a product of evolution and culture that has the purpose of facilitating our competitive and Cooperative relationships and does not make sense outside of that context
Pausing just after the initial question : Would still order it, even though I already knew the fact. I've reduced my meat eating over the years and it's a pleasure food now as well. Edit after the end : same with clothes, less clothes but better quality, that need less replacement. Still tries to get the cheapest I can for the best quality possible for the price.
@ecosophist Yep, as is taking into account the harm done to crops (and all the water used) to feed the animal and make the deliciously crunchy bun. There's butter in this as well, must not forget how milk is produced (taking the calves away as soon as possible). There's also the environmental effects from both as well. I'm also taking into account the psychological and physical harm done on people having to work the fields and in slaughterhouses. No food is zero impact. I learned to accept it and enjoy the reasonable amount of food I eat. Limit excesses and wastes, that's the way I chose.
@ecosophist you seem to stand by your belief that meat is bad, and I will not try to convince you otherwise. May you live long and healthy, that's all I wish for you and yours.
@ecosophist you just literally refuted all his bullshit arguments to justify animal abuse and he had nothing except to say "I'm not gonna change your mind" well of course your not when your own moral compass is inconsistent and fucked up.
@ecosophist A study was made on how to properly change our diets to meet our needs and respect the planet, here's the link because I think it would be interesting for you to read it: drive.google.com/file/d/1Ay-XqeiGWiRkEowN1Uc9VcPLoyS10vmc/view?usp=drivesdk
I have no problem eating meat as I spent a lot of my childhood on my grandfather's dairy farm which also had some other animals such as a few chickens, sheep and pigs. At a very young age I knew where food came from although very few other kids in my school did. Simple rule:. You name animals you consider a pet and you don't eat those. Animals you intend to eat you do not name. The 5 cats, one guard goose, one waste disposal goat and a retired sheepdog all had names. None of the cows, chickens, pigs and lambs were allowed to have names provided by humans. I was taught to consider these animals as part of the business. They were either nutrition for us or nutrition for customers. It all did and still does make perfect sense. Humans are an animal. Animals tend to exploit other animals for food or other resources.
animal rights are bull shit, humans have right so that the human society can work, we human don't have the obligation to protect another species ''right'' when we don't even live in their ''society'' if they have one.
Some people just don't find farm animals cute. Some people believe that animals can't suffer. Some people buy meat only when it comes from small farms where animals are treated correctly. Some people just don't care about animals. Not everybody is in cognitive dissonance, but yes, some (many?) are.
The real paradox is how almost every comments does exaclty what is mentioned in the video. They try to find excuses to keep doing something they already know is wrong and unnessasary
1:00 I'd feel uncomfortable but I'd eat it anyway because rationally, it's something I already knew before eating the sausage roll. I'd be more concerned about whoever served it on a plate like that.
My favorite meat is beef and one of my favourite animals is cows/cattle. My view is that we have a 'contract' with our domesticated livestock -we protect, feed, generally care for them and ensure the survival of their species in exchange for their meat and other products. Abusing the animals; subjecting them to pain, disease or fear -is a breach of that contract and a violation of our responsibilities. Rather than meat or work, we get companionship from our pet 'contracts' with cute animals like dogs/cats/etc.
But what is the basis/justification for these contracts? In the past we had a 'contract' where black people were servants of white people. I'm not equating the two as the same morally, but I'm pointing out that when we said 'slavery is bad because black people are human and they deserve rights" and the other side says 'it's moral because we have a contract.' It doesn't seem very compelling. Likewise when one side says 'killing animals is bad because we don't need it to survive (depending on where you live) and the other side says 'we have a contract.' I'm going to need more convincing before i get on board with that argument.
@@howiehiew Contract isn't exactly the right word since it tends to involve some sort of legality to it, but what I think KR P is getting at is an agreement between two or more parties, which is the justification in and of itself. I think we can all agree that slavery as we usually talk about it wasn't moral exactly because there was no contract, it was enforced with harsh punishment and unfair treatment. It's actually a pretty apt comparison to factory farms where the animals are kept in a place they don't want to be in by the human party, and this I'm sure we can all agree is considered immoral. But what if the animals are protected and cared for by their owners so that their needs are met while in captivity (ie free range lifestyles)? I think this is what the op is trying to say, that the humans agree to help the animals survive beyond what they would themselves be capable of, and in return the animals agree to become our food when we need to eat.
Yeah, spreading ideas gently is a great, achievable thing we can all do. And also, one way I motivate myself to shop better is to remember that: Every factory animal that I don't buy *is a creature saved,* -- literally I just prevented suffering. It feels very very good.
"Animal torture" is not a good argument for not eating that meat, animals suffer even more in nature. A better argument is how many resources are spent to produce the meat, like water and crops, and also the huge areas that are deforested to keep the cattle and grow their food
Modern farming is raising and killing miserable animals at a scale that would never have been possible in "nature" - I would invite you instead to set your benchmark at what is possible and/or ideal in modern civilisation.
@@Exquiredare you basing your statement on US farms? UK farming regulations means food animals have to be treated well. Even down to how they are slaughtered. I've experienced to whole process from birth to death on two different farms. I'm quite happy with the way the animals are raised and killed and still eat meat. I don't however eat veal on principal, as I don't think the way it's reared is right. The same goes for other foods where animals suffer during it's production (Foie gras and others). I accept there will be unscrupulous farmers who will try to force more profit from their animals by reducing their care standards, but with the UK consumer becoming more aware of what they are eating, food suppliers are now providing information to consumers as to which farm their meat or crops are coming from. In some cases we can even track meat to an actual animal's ID number. The scope for the unscrupulous farmer to operate in is being reduced all the time.
In some parts of the Eastern Europe sometimes kids are "initiated" into adulthood by participating in home-made meat preparation. From slaughter to rousted meet in a single day (yes - family gathers on weekend, slaughters it's own pig they fed and kept and eat it commenting if they raised it well enough). Here there are no doubts how meet is being produced, even kids know meet isn't growing on the trees and animal has to die in order for us to have a delight in our mouths. Also here not all animals are regarded as equal! Cats are not meant to have the same fate as pigs, cows or other animals who have to thank for their present day existence only because they provided meat across centuries. Some animals are meant to suffer because that's the way it is. Some other animals aren't. If you feel bad after eating some pork - go and pet your cat, make it feel good and that's it.
I think this was a really interesting video, but I do also think that the featured researcher has over-simplified the "meat problem." Actually hoping to dive into this issue myself in a series on where our food comes from, because it's so complicated and important.
On the flip side I like the fact that this philosophers making people think about the roots of the morality. It's just pretty mature for her to conclude that I morality is flawed even if we can't explain it
People try to justify unnecessary exploitation and killing of animals in many different ways. But I've never come across even one explanation that is not flawed on some level. I like to believe that deep in their hearts people really think animals do NOT deserve unnecessary premature death. To be just products, be prisoners, slaves, baby making machines. But it's just too hard to act according to your beliefs - logistically, socially etc. It requires quite a bit of research and will power, so we quickly come up with excuses to feel better about ourselves. But here's a though experiment: Just try thinking of a society where unnecessarily killing animals is *not* accepted as normal and you were brought up with that mindset (which most of us hold right now anyway but don't act on it). Would you then go out of your way to pay someone to kill a highly sentient animal for your own pleasure if you can live happily and healthfully on a plant-based diet? Would you do it yourself and how would you feel about that? Would your arguments hold up to scrutiny then? Try arguing the other point of view and think critically of your arguments. And why you're making them in the first place - is because deep inside you feel bad about eating meat, does it offend you because it goes against your upbringing? Now try thinking of a society where slavery is accepted and using the same arguments, but justifying exploitation of different races, not species. (If you think it's not the same - name a trait that justifies one and not the other) And try to think that an alien species came to us and used the same arguments for "harvesting" humans. (same with "it's not the same situation") One day I realized I was inconsistent with my beliefs and there was nothing I could hold onto, not even using my confirmation bias. So I researched a bit changed my behavior, not my core moral beliefs. Veganism is just too logically sound and consistent. And if going 100% is too much for you, just try to do your best. Make better choices more often than before, reduce harm you're doing. And know there's a huge positive and supportive community out there, just reach out. www.challenge22.com community is the best, none of that judgemental, angry vegan stereotype crap, just open-mindedness and compassion ;)
The way I see it is this: some animals are meant to be companions and some are meant to be food. It doesn't matter the species to whom the choice is presented, but that it is true that animals are meant to be either option based on the individual in question and the situation they are in at the time.
As long as you respect the animal, I personally don't understand the hesitation. The French gave us our last name, bc we always had meat around. No dissonance in my family 🤣
@ecosophist It's plausible, in another world, that plant life evolved into intelligence. When those plant aliens get here, yikes 😅😂 I'm just saying, those vegetables are living things too 😜
@ecosophist "Not necessary to eat meat" That's debatable and different for each person, not all digestive systems work the same way. "Meat products lead to suffering" True, what I'm against is unnecessary suffering. My dog eats other animals in order to live, the food I bought for her is made out of meat, sometimes I cook some meat to her. Se needs meat to be healthy because dogs are omnivores. She's like us.
I think the conclusion that 'people should analyse their opinions and act accordingly' would have possibly been better than that 'we are intrinsically hypocritical and should just accept it', no?
Yes. The conclusion seemed to be "there's nothing wrong with hypocrisy but it's fun to notice it" rather than "whoah, look at this hypocritical way in which we live, let's change it".
Feels like there is a considerable amount of bias in her presentation. How about a realistic solution that allows for ethical treatment of food animals? It will take a long time to bring around the greedmongers, but it's more realistic than everyone going vegan. Along the lines of training coal miners in renewable energy jobs.
How about lab grown meat, it's both more ethical and safer then traditionally grown meat, people seem to hate it cause they find it "unnatural" but it's, in my opinion, the best solution to this problem.
@@speedy01247 vegans don't hate it, just the process of how it's being tested atm. Were waiting for an ethical solution. However, most vegans probably wouldn't eat it themselves
@@TheAnnaKarpinska I've never heard of any vegans nor vegetarias opposing to lab-grown meat, only from -some- regular meat-consumers. However, I find it to have a very positive response as an idea to most people, getting "the best of both worlds".
how about not needlessly killing animals? We don't view killing humans without causing suffering as moral, why should it be any different with non-human animals
My biggest issue with the discussion of these sorts of conflicts is that they're taken in isolation with no thought to other factors. To continue with the meat example, if you think factory farming is bad, you may still eat meat because you can't afford a vegan/vegetarian diet that would be sufficiently nutritious so you partially subsist on fast food menus. It's not an individual's fault that our society is so skilled at exploiting nature that meat is cheaper than labor-intensive fresh produce these days. "Meat is bad" shouldn't have to conflict with "dying of malnutrition is bad" but that's the world we live in. When it comes to fast fashion and sweatshops, saying "sweatshops are bad" and buying clothes anyway aren't necessarily dissonant when you fundamentally cannot avoid benefiting from sweatshop labor due to the fundamental structure of our economy. "Sweatshops are bad" and "I need clothes" especially shouldn't be dissonant because there's so many ways that textiles can be worn and produced without exploiting people half a world away, but unfortunately, again, that's the world we live in. The concept of cognitive dissonance is a valuable and interesting one but it always irks me when these sorts of psychological concepts are applied only to atomized individuals with no consideration for wider socioeconomic structures or trends, especially when the world we live in distributes freedom of choice through dollar signs. Without a requisite amount of choicebucks it's fundamentally impossible to live up to your ideals given our entire society is fundamentally founded on the exploitation of anything that can generate profit and everyone except those doing the exploiting agree that exploitation is often Bad. Only way to resolve these dissonances is to fundamentally change the economic system we live in, which is much, much harder than just dealing with the dissonance in the short term to get on with your life in some capacity.
Being moral on all of the things is honestly exhausting. That is why we as an animal created cognitive dissonance. Pick one or two things that are very important and ignore the rest. I for one will enjoy my bacon that comes from animal slavery as long as I don't see someone kicking the pig for enjoyment.
I love that the conversation is centered around the concept of Cognitive Dissonance. However, it would be very interesting to research WHY the dissonance appears because it is usually the result of social changes pushed by different factors like censorship from a tyrannical government that imposes new values, or a draught that brought famine, etc. I think the key thing regarding Meat is that some animals have been with us to fight off rodents and other smaller animals (cats), or shared food with us and helped to protect us or we just simply coexisted together (dogs). U wouldn't make a dog go vegan cos you'd be putting him at risk. Now, we humans can go vegan and not suffer a lot from it or at all. However, nutritional science that grounds itself on biochemistry is a new thing. Artificial food is a new thing. This and the rise of egalitarian values for everyone are what makes the Meat Paradox a thing nowadays. I think it is important to distinguish between animals however because an octopus or a squid dont share the history of domestication dogs do. I think people worry about the animals in the middle like pigs and cows and the important conversation is more about HOW to do it and provide solutions instead of taking a moral high ground and eat potatoes, lentils and broccoli every day. Cause I think that's where the conversation surrounding veganism fails - the moral high horse. And the idea that it's either one thing or another, just taints the conversation.
Is neccesary to bring this topic to the table, we have to acknowledge that we are not perfect. On the other hand, we should aim to be a bit more morally consistent over time.
I think an important thing to remember with regard to the part about being less critical of others is that that applies to EVERYONE, since behaving consistently with one’s morals in one respect would not absolve them of the likely myriad of other hypocrisies in their life.
The author, at least in this tiny summary of the book, oversimplified the moral dilemma and shows clear bias and preference. She is correct to point out that there is a moral conflict between bonding with particular animals as cute and pet-like, and others as food and to tolerate more unsavory behaviors. (Even this is more complicated; we tend to prefer different species as pets, natural animals, and livestock, but not completely.) One part where she goes wrong is to strongly imply that the correct morality is that animals are very cute isn't the part worth being skeptical of. She is only skeptical of our eating of the animals, not of our over-indulged cute-ifying of them. I find it to be an even bigger miss to equate killing an animal for food with torture. She doesn't quite exactly say so, but she strongly implies it in a way that seems to say "I didn't say it exactly but I think we both know it's terribly cruel." I suppose we might all be a little tired of getting into the question of whether factory farming is the only way to raise animals, and how can we possibly eat anything but free range, etc. But I think even worse, for someone who writes a book about cognitive dissonance and morality, is to imply that moral ambiguity on any point isn't just an inherent part of human life. We do that all that time. That's what human morality IS. Purity is nonsense. We do the best we can. The implication that I must be perfectly moral on any point of empathy is that part I have a revulsion to. Mostly because I can't achieve it. No one can. How I wish. How we all wish. And how I wish that this thorny, complicated issue that involves no less than the way we've been comfortable raising livestock or hunting animals in the wild for food for many thousands of years wasn't boiled down to "it's time to finally be a food angel." Sure. When the last human child is removed from sex worker hell or impoverished starvation, I'll circle back around to "maybe it would be kinder not to even kill an animal." The problem of "cognitive dissonance" in this case really comes from a presumption that moral issues are infinite, pure, and resolvable. They cannot be. Really, not ever. Please don't anyone tell me "eating meat causes climate change." That's, again, an oversimplification. The biological system of a farm needs sustainability, and that means eating far less meat - and using animals as fertilizer machines - rather than eliminating animals entirely for a huge monoculture of crops ripe for problems solved only with climate-destroying methods.
There are a few groups of people in this discussion. Many are still ignorant about what processes get food on our tables. And others, like me, agree with their vegan/vegetarian friends that animal exploitation needs drastic mitigation. Still, I'll eat meat, yes. And I'm not actively looking for arguments in favor of eating meat. So: a paradox? One could argue it is. Cognitive dissonance? No, that's a bit simplistic. Where's the line that defines, ethically, which lives are worth something? Dogs are usually mentioned at this point, but how would you deal with a termite infestation? If an animal is born with a defined purpose of feeding humans, do you necessarily care if it becomes your food, even in the cases where it's been given a "humane" treatment from beginning to end? I'm not trying to give answers here, just surprised with the use of the term "cognitive dissonance".
Whether it's an animal or a vegetable consumed something dies in order for something else to live. Animals we relate to far easier than a plant or vegetable, we anthropomorphize them, we empathize with them and perhaps most significantly we see a reflection of our own mortality in them.
SunShine Senpai 可愛い Actually I’m factually correct. This planet has a cycle of life and we are all a part of it whether we recognize it or not. Of course that doesn’t mean what and how much we as humans consume hasn’t become increasingly unnatural. We most likely do consume more meat than we need to and certainly we waste far more than we need to.
So many here have missed the mark! Only eat ugly animals. And possibly avoid derailing a worthwhile conversation with a polarizing topic as the context.
The thing is, we are at a point in human history where, we don’t have to hunt for our food anymore. We now have the option to eat what we want because it’s accessible, but when our ancestors were hunting boar in the wild, they didn’t care about how the animal felt, they needed to feed their family. If ancient humans had a McDonald’s just a couple caves away I think the idea that “eating animals is wrong” might be tossed around if they were made consciously aware of the quantity of animals that are being killed for their consumption, or if they were able to eat a “vegan meat” option without having to wait 9 months for rice and beans and carrots and other vegetables to grow, but its unrealistic. They needed to survive. Because we no longer depend on what we find in the wild to feed our family, we can now choose what items we want to eat or not, because they are readily available. My moral standpoint is, yes, I care about the animal and it sucks so much that we put animals in the conditions we do to have easily accessible meat, but, we are given the option to choose. Choose to eat it, or choose not to, but if it was your survival, how would you feel then?
"Why did you get meat from animals that were treated like that?" Woud be my question to the business that gave me that card with my meat. I am more and more going towards game for exactly that reason. Because the animal usually had a natural and fullfilled life until if was suddenly shot and hopefully died a quick death. The probability to eat an animal that was never mistreated in its hole life is way higher here. It also means less meat throughout the week which makes it taste that much better even :D
You are close to matching my perspective. We should not be cruel, however, it is dangerously naive to pretend avoiding eating meat is moral. It is an avoidance of death. It is a fear of death and nothing more.
@@LotusesGalaxyOcean Why should anyone refrain from eating a person (perhaps you?) in that case? There's no difference between your fear of death and an animal's fear of death. Being happy requires a creature to, you know, not be raised for slaughter. In today's time, avoiding meat is DEFINITELY moral.
Being afraid of realities hard edges was my point. You see animals and humans as the same enough to see eating them as heinous. I don't because my priority is sentient human life. Starving humans matter more and until there aren't any animal rights are not going to be high on my priority list. We only have so much life to spend on effecting change. In my book humans rank higher than animals. Morality means next to nothing to a starving man.
@@LotusesGalaxyOcean Starving people? In the Western World? Give me a break 😂 No one is FORCED to kill animals. Unless of course you are a hunter-gatherer, which I bet $10000 you're not. Learn to eat your fruits and vegetables for nutrition.
Everyone needs to choose for themselves. People shouldn't put there believes on to other people but it's good to be able to evaluate yourself to see what biases you use to make your decisions and beliefs.
This was really interesting. I generally try not to buy meat in the store since I get meat from my father who is a hunter. Hunted meat is better than factory-produced meat in my opinion (both ethically and environmentally). So if I am unable to get meat from my father I basically only eat fish. But I still order meat if I go to a restaurant without hesitation... I guess because we always used to when I was a kid, since going to a restaurant was something special you did on rare occasions.
I think this all comes down to what the human individual thinks is necessary for optimal survival. He/she will allow any contradictions as long they are in his/her favour. Will definitely look out for Julia's book!
What an individual thinks is necessary for 'optimal survival' (personal opinion) - this can justify rape, cannibalism, etc. But really there is no moral justification to kill someone when we don't have to, we have so many other options.
I guess it's a part of growing up. The more a person acts like an adult, the more it gets used. If you're young or have decided not be successful you can stay true to your principles. Or get old but not grow up.
Vanessa, let me explain why I did not like this content so much - it hits close to home. It makes me concerned for many people like me. This topic accompanied a near-psychological-break I had last year. Health problems, despite careful and extended efforts, made it so I could not ignore the fact that meat and fish are the safest foods for ME (and an ever-increasing population, due to the complexities of food intolerance). I had previously fervently held for so long that veganism was my absolute highest morality on every level, and so that needed to ... change... with this new information. It wasn't easy. I had to develop an almost ceremonial relationship to eating meat, and focus on the heartfelt respect I have to the animals that "transfer me their life". And yes - life - my nutrition was indeed sending me to an early grave. It's complicated, but I'm working with a group of doctors now and will continue to learn more. I can say I have more energy and willpower "from meat" as a staple in my diet. I am more emotionally stable than I have been since before puberty, I have been able to quit some awfully rutted bad habits (like porn, candy, Facebook...). I've found the confidence to return for graduate school. My fitness has improved. I more deeply revere life, other humans included. My blood test results have normalized. Anecdotally, but objectively, my life has improved. All considered, I have minimal cognitive dissonance for returning to my previous ways; however, the transformation was absolutely inundated with it. And, this video surely would NOT have helped me a year ago. There is a lot more that could be said. Please reconsider enforcing a (potentially) dangerous lifestyle. As I have learned, there is a lot of published research about this to consider. Thank you for listening.
I like the way you describe cognitive dissonance and how people explain their behaviour. I also like your conclusion (to not be defensive about your hypocrisy and be more tolerant of others). But I’m still not sure meat eating is the best example. To me it seems more like a convenience and short term pleasure thing vs a higher level moral/ethical belief. Changing your diet requires a lot of discipline. Most people lack that discipline even if they would prefer not to harm animals.
It's like how it was mentioned earlier, the problem is more the industry and how THEY treat the animals. How they are treated and what they eat actually does impact the quality of the meat after the animal is killed. Not to say we can't be more involved, however tackling the big bad corporations is no easy task. Closest standard that most people can go to right now in regards to meat at a common spot like the supermarket is eating grass-fed + non-GMO + non-hormones/antibiotics.
What the Meat Paradox says to me is that we all too often fall in line with things simply because they are and don't think about them for ourselves. There's been many occasions where I've seen people that love meat stop eating hot dogs because they've seen the process of making them. Social conditioning is something that's nearly inescapable.. unless we start conditioning people to think for themselves; It's just that we're already "conditioned" to "condition" others and so the cycle continues.
What if we didn't think they were cute, like a regular hunter looking a for a meal to survive from a relatively weak pray to ourselves. And on the cute side we think either cute but, what about out all the cute plants that have pretty colors or have flowers while growing and it has been scientifically shown plants can feel "pain" why do you think most plants have defenses like the cactus or thorns on berry bushes or Peppers making chemicals that are toxic but only give us humans advanced heat pain. So where do we stop, When we can physically see something hurt and dying for our food, or the actual fact that everything dies for something else to live long only to feed something else either immediately by eating it like meat, or natural death and turn into basic compounds like carbon or just used in mulch for new plant too grow. (Also joke answer: The animals like cows and sheep or other animals that eat the animals that eat plants already ate the plants for us so its double "healthy" lol)
What do you think would happen to all of the animals raised for the slaughter if we didn't raise them for consumption? If we don't have a use for it then a thing is considered a weed, a pest, vermin, etc. This extendeds to all things, including members of our own species. How many species have we driven to extinction this year due to our negligence or apathy?
Well Im vegetarian so wouldn't have ordered a sausage roll in the first place unless it was vegan one, then Id be very surprised to get that message with it.
"There is no solution to the meat paradox" Wat, we just said the solution was to continue lying to ourselves with excuses or go vegan (or have absolutly no other choice but to eat animal products which is super rare).
Not all meat is factory farmed, I find the local grass fed beef from the happy cows that graze in the fields around my town to be far less of a paradox. If the animals are kept in good conditions than the fact that they are killed is the source of the paradox rather than the animals whole life.
"There is no solution to the meat paradox" Ahahah that is just laughable. Yes there is. There are more and more people realising that there is a solution every day. Just buy different things at the supermarket. That's it.
What is it with straw-man paradoxes recently :/ - I don't believe factory farming is OK, and torturing animals is very wrong, and I don't care how "cute" or not the animal is.... however I will pay more for free-range meat, eggs to minimise any cruelty.... and I would ask the restaurant why they were selling meat they believed had involved cruelty and why they either didn't either not sell meat or found a better provider.
Personally, I think that ALL meat involved cruelty. No animal wants to be killed. No "quick ways" of killing can change that. Unless of course, you don't think murder is immoral either. Because humans and animals share the SAME fear of death. Slaughtering animals is no better (in my opinion) than murdering a human.
Great Video. A phrase came into mind: Intellectually Honest about Hypocrisy. Only the person knows truly. It’s a great topic for discussion and exchange of ideas.
I know it wasn't the point but I couldn't stop thinking about it: is being cute a good enough reason to not harm something? Some animals are not cute. Or some people. I eat meat and animal products such as milk and I don't feel any need to express discomfort related to the fact to keep my face. I live in Europe.
To push back a bit, just because I can, I could see the inconsistency being squared off. People have been known to even eat other people if they're desperate enough. If you establish an ethics meter that changes in relation to something like your hunger level or your empathy level, then you could easily dismiss the argument for a paradox - This cow is cute, but I'm also hungry. Or, this cat is cute, but I don't care enough about its suffering. Because, ultimately, that IS what you're saying when you decide to eat it.
PLEASE NOTE: this isn't a video about being vegan - I am not vegan and I ate the very sausage roll in question after filming with it 😈
This video is about exploring moral decision making, it's about recognising the contradictions in our own behaviour and being less critical of others, too. I know this strikes a chord in some people who feel strongly about either eating meat or being vegan, etc. This is just one example, fast fashion is another that shows how money can complicate our morality too. We're not saying anything is "right" or "wrong" - just that a lot of people behave in a way they consider "wrong" and create post-hoc excuses to justify how it is right for them.
I find cognitive dissonance (and the Festinger study with the spools) FASCINATING and I hope you'll finish watching this video having learned more about it.
And thank you for watching! I really respect Dr. Shaw's work and it was lovely to be able to speak with her.
I think morality is not a rigid thing. We wax and wane as we go through the day. I don't think many people have their values written down, or ever take the time to evaluate them. So that lack of discipline and visualization allows room for dissonance and inconsistency.
Lovely video. Per ush, keep up the good work.
Great! Would have hated that the sacrifice of the animal would have been in vain.
I think the issue at hand is not the sacrifice of the animals, but the crazily money driven people who abuse and torture those living creatures without any respect for their sacrifice. That is what must be put to an end! with education (to wish your videos are an important contribute), with the demand to the politicians we elect to increase the control on animal farms in the territory we live in, and inspire to produce laws to prohibit the import of those regions who don't, and of course to each owns responsibility to stop animal torture whenever we see it.
if money dictates the mass production, will also dictate their access to the market, and consequent profit.
In my perspective, all living things are a spectacularly beautiful jackpot, and can't label the vegetables to be less impressive and less worthy of respect as the fish I had for lunch; so to put them on a scale and state what is more worth living, is of a very overwhelming anthropocentric arrogance.
And one day ill be something else's lunch.
Thank you for your beautiful video!
Many dislikes are from butthurt meat eaters tho XD
I don't just eat it. I order 4.
Yeah. I've noticed just as much cognitive dissonance (although I am not sure if that's the right term for this here) in vegans that I've known personally. It's impossible to have no animals die to produce food or clothing, so what they more seem to generally focus on is a concept of "contamination".
The real meat paradox is why that guy ate a burger from both sides.
Burning a tallow candle at both ends HAHAHA
You just won can you please start your own channel lmfao
unnerving
1. A person finds a hurt bird in their garden -> they adopt it and try to help it recover.
2. The same person eats chicken every day -> causes mass suffering of birds. (which contradicts 1.)
3. The same person takes a strong moral stance defending both of these actions.
This is an alternatively phrased analogy for the cognitive dissonance phenomenon.
The example is flawed, the bird is alive and reacts to human interactions but the chicken is most likely already dead so you don't have the slightest emotional care for that chicken but the bird is something '''special''" it probably got a name as well and the owner is emotionally invested.
@@witzprinz4766 That's the exact point of the paradox. You care about the bird you find, you even think of it as something special. But the chicken, although going through massive suffering, you do not care.
Karl A wow, i wonder how the farmers or goat herders felt when they had to eat an animal they raised?
@@karl5874 "MaSsIVe SufFeRiNg"
Karl E If I bought a stack of papers, I would care about and make the most out of those papers. If someone else destroys a stack of papers that they own, I wouldn’t care at all. There is no dissonance.
If I ordered food, and the restaurant tried to guilt trip me, I'd leave immediately and never come back.
@Han Boetes There is no cognitive dissonance for me. These animals were bred to be eaten. They are below us on the food chain.
@@kuchenjaeger2164 indeed bred to be eaten and held in captivity.
how do you feel between free range meat and factory meat?
would you prefer to eat an animal that has enjoyed its captive life, or one that has been standing in a small, intensely crowded room knee deep in its own shit (all to save money and space)?
@@Kalleosini I prefer free range, though that has more to do wit the better quality of the meat. I just wish it wasn't twice as expensive.
is that really guilt tripping? Its just stating a fact about what happens to those animals. Sounds like the "guilt" part is coming from yourself
@@itskelvinn "guilt-tripping: make (someone) feel guilty, especially in order to induce them to do something."
Yes, it is, by definition, guilt-tripping.
'We can't solve the meat paradox'.
Vegetarians and vegans: 'Am I a joke to you?'
I disagree with the premise of "If you think animals are cute you should be vegan, or you are engaging in cognitive dissonance" (And I'm just paraphrasing). That premise is really a straw-man. I can be completely cognizant that I find pets cute, I can even find some chicken cute... and yet see no problem with eating it. I found fruits that are "cute" as well... and have no problem eating them too.
It's not cognitive dissonance. I don't disassociate the two... If we follow that premisse to the fullest... it's would be cognitive dissonance to love a human being and wanting a pedophile to be put in jail.
I totally get your point Mateus - I think the "cute animals" explanation is simplifying the original premise, it was how you feel about animals suffering when they are slaughtered to provide meat for you. From the research paper:
We term the apparent psychological conflict between people’s dietary preference for meat and their moral response to animal suffering “the meat-paradox” (Loughnan, Haslam, & Bastian, 2010)
Does that change anything?
OK. So I totally eat meat and I'm not disagreeing with u completely.
But I still feel like there's a flaw in your analogy. A pedophile has done a lot of harm to, and inflicted trauma on someone. And putting them in jail is definitely justifiable as punishment. But most of the animals that are used to make meat products are domesticated and would not have done harm to anyone, and most of the harm would be done to that animal itself. So comparing those two would be slightly nonsensical.
That being said, I do agree with some of the points that you're making and I mean, I do eat meat, so I can't really condemn you to vegan hell or something lol
Mateus Bittencourt I think the cognitive dissonance that people talk about with meat comes more from the fact that animals are sentient and can feel pain, as opposed to just being “cute”. The majority of people would not hurt or kill an innocent animal, but have no problem eating meat 2-3 times a day, because they don’t make the connection that a living animal had to die for their meal. Maybe for some, it’s about “cuteness” but I think those who claim cognitive dissonance are talking about the physical pain / suffering and slaughtering of an animal upon which that individual would not have hurt themselves.
The actual line is just paraphrasing. You can use other concepts such as how electronic parts tend to be made in brutal conditions that we would reject, but we like the results of it. You can't just gloss off the issue and say "why do they do this?" When they are doing it for your benefit.
The goal is to come to terms with it by either accepting that it is ok for the event to happen or deeming it not ok to benefit from it. Note that saying " it's ok for cute animals to suffer and die" is over such option. Even accepting that you are doing wrong and still doing it is an option as well.
The issue is that many don't break the dissidence. They either hide from the unpleasant elements and ignore it or find some cop out so they can continue to say that they killing or exploiting is wrong but they are still moral because.... They don't have a choice or there's nothing they can do or their case is special or something like that.
Of course the moral situation gets murkier when it comes to things like food, but you need to come to terms with the situation first.
You can still eat soilant green. Just know what you are actually eating.
I'd say instead that your distilling of her argument down to the animals just being cute is the real strawman here. She specifically mentioned it was about torture and deplorable conditions in factory farms - systematic neglect, mistreatment, and torture of millions of animals that are capable of feeling and understanding pain.
She also mentioned human suffering in factories making clothing.
We CAN solve the paradox! Just by choosing consistency of actions and beliefs.
if a paradox can be solved and proved to be solvable, does it make it a paradox anymore/ at all?
The problem is that everyone believe in incompatible things, this is part of being human - believe in things that do not fit together and try to find a way to fit them.
Not believing in a contradictory things is not the solution because sooner or later you will found that some of the things you believes do not fit together.
I have no cognitive dissonance. I just admit I'm a bad person 😉
Same
Same. Whenever I'm about to eat meat, I just remember how terrible of a person you are, and it clears my conscience
I tell myself I would kill a chicken to eat it so I feel like it doesn’t matter that I never met the chicken.
It's easy to claim what you'd do in a hypothetical situation, but most humans when faced with having to kill something with their own bare hands, would choose to eat something else. Otherwise you'd have to go through the trouble of skinning it, draining its blood, deboning it, removing it's organs, cleaning the body & its shithole, cutting it, and all the while wretching from the stench. But it's still not palatable bc we're not drawn to the natural taste of meat. So you'd still have to tenderize it, marinate it, & season it. And even then, still not palatable bc we're not drawn to the natural texture of meat. So then you have to cook it. Which means you have to find wood & build a fire. That's alot of work. If it were me, I'd make that animal my new buddy & figure out how it's surviving & just eat whatever fruit/veg its living on. No blood, no stench, no tryna build a stove. Just me & my new buddy.
Well, at least you're honest about it
The actual better reason not to eat meat (or at least eat less of it) is because of the huge amount of ressources needed to grow them the way we do it, meaning contributing significantly to deforestation in 'developing' countries, soil pollution and people poisoning (glyphosate).
And the actual best reason, is to eat meat substitutes that are the same and grown in labs / are artificially flavoured. Let's hope sooner than later!
Also the massive amount of greenhouse gasses that cattle produce. All good reasons, that said, I still eat meat.
Coffee , soy and palm production all individually cause more deforestation than meat production. And plant cultivation is the #1 cause of pesticides polluting water supplies.
@@zutaca2825 hey, whatever you gotta believe to justify your herbavore diet. It's just a fallacy to think a veggie diet is better for the Earth or humanity. The science and research just doesn't support it. You'll notice that any study claiming an all vegetarian planet is a good thing is paid for by special interest groups. The propaganda is real and you're buying into it.
@@ryanhatesgirls indeed, but what do we use soy for? 3/4 goes to feeding animals. Palm kernel expeller is also a source of protein for animals. And many animals drink coffee nowadays... Well, maybe not :)
How would the restaurant know the animal was tortured? Like either they're just saying it or they knowingly made a choice
If we stop buying cheap clothes. The factory workers wont have enough $ to provide to their family making them poorer
If you stop buying from companies that you KNOW are taking advantage of the poor (regardless of the price) they'd be forced to change their ways. Where you spend your money is the most powerful vote you can cast.
Having seen, first-hand in many cases, how other predatory animals (forward facing eyes, carnivorous/omnivorous teeth, etc) kill and eat their food. In nearly every case that I have personally witnessed, death came slowly, painfully, and with a lot of violence; oftentimes animals were being consumed before they'd even died! I also worked a dairy farm in my youth and had occasion to be at a slaughter house--a gruesome place to be sure--and I saw, again first-hand, how the HUMAN animal kills other animals. From what I personally witnessed, the cows are corralled into chutes where they are eventually pithed by a small (about .22 caliber) rod. The cows die instantly. The cows were easily managed and moved into and along chutes just like they did at the dairy farm we owned. A friend who worked there said they treated their cows pretty much the same way we treated ours, and for admittedly the same reason, you want to keep a 2,000 pound beast as calm and manageable as possible. It seems that humans often ARE the most humane of the animal kingdom.
There are SO MANY really great meat substitutes these days that this shouldn't really be a problem anymore. Jackfruit, mushrooms, seitan, tempeh, the beyond burger, even Greggs in the UK has a vegan sausage roll now! Just to name a few examples. Align with your morals, it's easier now than ever :)
Except you are ignoring that cooked meat is what made us have the brains we do, and propelled our species above the others.
@@justsomenerd8925there is some disagreement in science about that. Many say it was actually likely starches and agriculture, not specifically meat because our brains are made up of exactly that - fats. Plenty of meat eaters out that didn’t evolve to us. Regardless, if doing something morally wrong were to advance us - I’d say you would almost always be on the right side of history by finding a alternative and doing what is morally better than slaughtering, cruelly exploiting, and/or torturing others when u don’t have to
A much more baffling question is: how can someone be aware of this and still choose to keep their inconsistent beliefs?
I enjoyed how you guys presented the original Festinger study. Well done!! But I think it's important to disentangle dissonance from when something isn't cognitively available/salient. The fast fashion example comes to mind: The way that we consume fashion separates us from knowing the bad way it came about (how the sausage was made, as it were). Even if we "know" about it when we purchase the clothing (as in, it was a fact we can recall when asked), that information may not me cognitively available when making the purchasing decision. It's only dissonance when we're aware of the "bad thing" and we do it anyways as opposed to simply having the knowledge that it's bad tucked somewhere in our brain.
Great video though! Really love how it was all presented.
TLDR: Ignorance is bliss
Morally I have no leaning towards eating meat or not. The issue becomes that the convenience and simplicity of a diet of meat and vegetables; financially, availability, and nutritionally, is why I continue to eat meat. I have a lot of things in a day I deal with and while I would just as easily eat chicken thighs over rice and steamed vegetables as I would with baked tofu the same, the issue is that meat is easy, meat is readily available, meat have nutritional value that I did not need to delve into the study for balance for my diet.
The effort has become the factor, I can literally walk to a restaurant and get a cheeseburger. But getting good vegerarian food with out effort is difficult. I have cute little animals but it is more about my health and time than it is if I think it is cruel or not. It is normalized and convenient.
It's much cheaper to not eat meat, even in America. Just saying.
People don't like change, we naturally favour the path of least resistance.
people are weak
@@Personnenenparle Plebs can't control themselves.
"stop buying cheap clothes" ok, give me money so I can buy designer rags which were made in the exact same conditions that the cheap clothes was made in
Wow, who said designer clothes aren't cheap? Most designer clothes are cheap actually
0:56 The only paradox is the crazy way this dude eats a burger...
*All is one, one is all* _we consume other lives to be alive, If we die we become food to other lives. It's a cruel and random world, but the chaos is all so beautiful._
You don't need to pay for animals to be slaughtered so you can live when you have other options like vegetables, fruits, legumes, grains, nuts, seeds. There are no essential nutrients that you find only in animal products.
I didn't like approach of the video to the "be respectful of others opinions" I think meat consumption and the moral ambiguity of it are two whole different topics.
For example. I'm from Mexico. The culture I was raised in shows respect for the things we eat, I've killed chickens of pigs for the food we consume. I'm not "experiencing" meat from afar. I know what it takes for me to get the diatary needs.
My moral alignment may differ from what's usual.
My first thought was about how, as a hunter, I've seen an animal go from breathing to being served up on a plate. I prefer to have someone else do it, but I don't have any problem. But I think what they were getting at was heavier on the way the farmed animals are treated. Following through to the other examples: buying cheap clothing isn't bad - buying cheap clothing that you know was made in miserable conditions is bad. So you think, "terrible there are people in those conditions" and "oohh, such a good price" and that is the dissonance.
@Sandcastle • I also have killed many animals for food. And I have pet dogs. And I have killed them when they grew old and began to suffer. And I have no moral objection to eating dog meat (or even human meat for that matter) because meat is just a material resource.
Do you have a pet dog? Do you feed it animal-based food? If so, then you are a hypocrite. If not, then you are still a hypocrite because you are harming your dog's health as dogs are obligate carnivores and must eat some meat in their diet for good health.
I have killed many animals in my life both to feed my family, and to put animals out of their suffering. The only reason I would not eat my dog is because my dog fills a different role in my life, and when it is old enough that I must kill it ("put it to sleep" as they will say in the business, but killing is killing) then by that point it will no longer be good for eating. When I breed and raise animals for food, they have a charmed life, free from parasites, sheltered from the weather, all the food they want to eat and an abundance of variety, they are well-groomed and get plenty of interaction, they do not have to worry about being agonizingly ripped apart by a predator and eaten alive like their wild counterparts. And when it is time to harvest, they get an extra nice treat, a little thank-you for providing sustenance to my family. Then, their happy life ends instantly and painlessly without any fear or discomfort to them at all.
Every living thing will die. I hope with all my heart that the universe is as kind to me when my time comes as I am to the animals I have raised and cared for, whether for meat or for companionship.
@Sandcastle • We did have a chicken as a pet! We made soup. Your point?
That's pretty much what I was thinking! Like, am I a psycho? I know where meat comes from and I'm fine with it! lol
I would still eat the saussage roll because of another aspect at play: information bias.
I will try to make this brief:
First, abusing animals has been shown to lead to mental instability. As farmers and butchers are not more likely to have violent tendancies, they must adhere to the humanitarian guidelines peovided to them preventing torture.
Thus the statement provided can only be true if the person submitting the info would know this first hand. As this would constitute a written confession of allowing/commiting acts against the established guidelines (which are laws), they would be incarserating themselves for no reason.
So occam's razor would conclude that the note must be a lie. But why lie? Well, occam's razor answers this again since the most likely reason someone would lie to create a moral delema would be to push an agenda.
Ergo, the information provided is a lie that relies on the bias of our laziness of considering all written statements as fact.
To counter this, enjoy the saussage slowly with audible moans of pure bliss.
"My brain is freaking out" Yeah no. I toss that paper like a frizbee and eat.
Indeed, they are the only ones with cognitive dissonance.
I have no emotional connection to animals, the meat paradox is only a paradox as long as you value animal the same way you value humans, or if you value all animal the same way.
My take on it is easy : animals are not meant for anything and we have the right to do whatever we want with them. Be that eating, cuddling or feeding them.
Being famous goes well with being curious. Oh I read this book I liked, gonna fly out and meet the author to talk about it
It's not like there is no solution to it..In the case of the meat paradox we could just cease to eat meat?!
yeah because i dont want to waste food
20-50% of it is wasted long before it reaches your plate or the store/restaurant.
sometimes more
But if you buy it you (as a customer) demand with your money more of it. So if you do buy and eat it, more animals are going to get killed.
@@Erikakicute there's the short term and there's the long term.
and we're hard wired to think in the short term.
the short term says that food on your plate will be tossed in the trash if you do not eat it, meaning you will need to eat something else to get those nutrients, meaning the expenditure of food is double, and there are people in this world who starve.
making it morally wrong to toss the food.
anyway frouto you're going after the wrong people (all you vegans are)
you need to go after the source of the meat, not the people eating it.
you need to protest the cruel methods used to save money at the expense of the animals physical and mental health.
the least we can do for them is to make their life in captivity an enriching one, and if that is deemed too expensive (it is not, companies are just greedy) then we shouldn't be doing it at all.
and you need to protest it in a better way than being a keyboard warrior, there are many vegans and other sympathetic people, pool your resources, make a change, improve the world.
telling people they're doing something wrong is not going to have an impact.
@@Kalleosini i don't go for anyone. I just mentioned somehting really simple. One question, how do you help the animals live better lives in captivity as you said?
@@Erikakicute I don't
but I don't need to, really, we have a lot of free range animals where I'm from.
it could be better for sure, but it is not my hill to die on, I've chosen another.
To me, consistency is important. I'm consciously aware of cognitive dissonance, and I often catch myself being a hypocrite before anyone else gets a chance to call me out on it. However, despite the fact I'm not vegan, I don't need to be: the problem at hand is _abused_ animals. I don't have a problem eating meat from something that didn't live a tortured life.
I also like Shaw's example of shopping at stores where you're unhappy with underpaid workers. But even then, just know your brands. You can still shop at a place like Walmart and not have your money go to near-slave workers in China, as long as you know which brands don't do such things.
Of course, there are moments in life where you can't avoid going against your morals, at which point, I just accept (for myself) I'm doing the wrong thing and deserve whatever comes my way.
1:43 this is the exact problem. You've separated "animals" and "others". Animals are others. They are sentient beings with their own thoughts and feelings. We will begin to make progress when we realise humans aren't the only beings who deserve to be free from unnecessary pain.
When you live in a city you can think of all kinds of stuff about meat and animals, but in the country we see how these animals are raised and how they are treated. I have even worked in the Meat industry both with chickens and beef, it is quite the aspersion to insist that mistreatment of animals is 'normal' or 'the standard.'
ruclips.net/video/C1vW9iSpLLk/видео.html
But sausages... But also cute animals... But also sausages... But also cute animals... Ugh
Easy, make the sausages out of ugly but delicious animals.
However make the animals by overly sensitive to pain and over expressive of their suffering.
@@Doomroar I wonder what shark sausages taste like :)
@@Vasileski88 Sharks are cute, how dare you to even imply they are not!
I mean, the animals were going to die either way. Might as well get sausages out of the deal.
Bacon.
We are all inconsistent beings. And when we can not behave better, we can be more understanding of others and treat them better so, be nice. It is wonderful message
It’s because I want to have my cake and eat it too!
Because it brings me pleasure. Everything I do is based around that, hell I give it precedence over literally anything else.
Hell even helping my friends and family is done because it makes me feel good.
Sure, society would collapse if everybody adapted my forward thinking approach but hey.
So basically try not to be hypocritical and be excellent to each other.
Party on, dudes!
A lot of paradoxes are created by using overly narrow definitions or too few factors in consideration when dealing with them.
You can look at things like the bald man paradox, the liar Paradox and the ship of Theseus paradox and resolve them by being more careful with your definitions and expanding the factors you consider.
I think this is the case here also and there multiple layers.
Paradox starts to go away when we recognize that our moral system is developed in a social context and our personal relationships have profound effects because morality developed as a way to resolve conflicts and promote cooperation. We care more about beings that we have a personal relationship with and whether or not the lack of universality pleases or displeases you has nothing to do with whether or not that is the nature of morality.
We have much stronger personal relationships with the cute animals around us. We have much weaker relationships with the animals that former food. And as the philosopher sits in her comfortable apartment she doesn't realize that the mere existence of our house, the vegetable she eats, almost everything she does in her life kills other organisms including many animals. Yes things like organic farming, building a home, even maintaining a home make sure that animals are smashed, rendered limb from limb and starved to death.
So unfortunately it's a paradox is based on a profound misunderstanding that morality is not a physical property of this universe but a product of evolution and culture that has the purpose of facilitating our competitive and Cooperative relationships and does not make sense outside of that context
Pausing just after the initial question : Would still order it, even though I already knew the fact. I've reduced my meat eating over the years and it's a pleasure food now as well.
Edit after the end : same with clothes, less clothes but better quality, that need less replacement. Still tries to get the cheapest I can for the best quality possible for the price.
@ecosophist Yep, as is taking into account the harm done to crops (and all the water used) to feed the animal and make the deliciously crunchy bun. There's butter in this as well, must not forget how milk is produced (taking the calves away as soon as possible). There's also the environmental effects from both as well. I'm also taking into account the psychological and physical harm done on people having to work the fields and in slaughterhouses.
No food is zero impact.
I learned to accept it and enjoy the reasonable amount of food I eat. Limit excesses and wastes, that's the way I chose.
I agree, people it too much meat. It is perfectly fine to have meat twice a week. Not every day.
@ecosophist you seem to stand by your belief that meat is bad, and I will not try to convince you otherwise. May you live long and healthy, that's all I wish for you and yours.
@ecosophist you just literally refuted all his bullshit arguments to justify animal abuse and he had nothing except to say "I'm not gonna change your mind" well of course your not when your own moral compass is inconsistent and fucked up.
@ecosophist A study was made on how to properly change our diets to meet our needs and respect the planet, here's the link because I think it would be interesting for you to read it:
drive.google.com/file/d/1Ay-XqeiGWiRkEowN1Uc9VcPLoyS10vmc/view?usp=drivesdk
I have no problem eating meat as I spent a lot of my childhood on my grandfather's dairy farm which also had some other animals such as a few chickens, sheep and pigs.
At a very young age I knew where food came from although very few other kids in my school did.
Simple rule:. You name animals you consider a pet and you don't eat those. Animals you intend to eat you do not name.
The 5 cats, one guard goose, one waste disposal goat and a retired sheepdog all had names.
None of the cows, chickens, pigs and lambs were allowed to have names provided by humans. I was taught to consider these animals as part of the business. They were either nutrition for us or nutrition for customers.
It all did and still does make perfect sense. Humans are an animal. Animals tend to exploit other animals for food or other resources.
animal rights are bull shit, humans have right so that the human society can work, we human don't have the obligation to protect another species ''right'' when we don't even live in their ''society'' if they have one.
Some people just don't find farm animals cute. Some people believe that animals can't suffer. Some people buy meat only when it comes from small farms where animals are treated correctly. Some people just don't care about animals.
Not everybody is in cognitive dissonance, but yes, some (many?) are.
The real paradox is how almost every comments does exaclty what is mentioned in the video. They try to find excuses to keep doing something they already know is wrong and unnessasary
Awesome video.... Your videos always make me think of something new and helps me see the world in a different perspective
Thanks so much Ibrahim!
Then you have a problem being unable to think clearly on your own...
1:00 I'd feel uncomfortable but I'd eat it anyway because rationally, it's something I already knew before eating the sausage roll. I'd be more concerned about whoever served it on a plate like that.
My favorite meat is beef and one of my favourite animals is cows/cattle.
My view is that we have a 'contract' with our domesticated livestock -we protect, feed, generally care for them and ensure the survival of their species in exchange for their meat and other products.
Abusing the animals; subjecting them to pain, disease or fear -is a breach of that contract and a violation of our responsibilities.
Rather than meat or work, we get companionship from our pet 'contracts' with cute animals like dogs/cats/etc.
If you think that the meat industry doesn't abuse animals, or subject them to pain or fear... you are very wrong
@@itskelvinn
How about reading my comment properly, before replying?
But what is the basis/justification for these contracts? In the past we had a 'contract' where black people were servants of white people. I'm not equating the two as the same morally, but I'm pointing out that when we said 'slavery is bad because black people are human and they deserve rights" and the other side says 'it's moral because we have a contract.' It doesn't seem very compelling.
Likewise when one side says 'killing animals is bad because we don't need it to survive (depending on where you live) and the other side says 'we have a contract.' I'm going to need more convincing before i get on board with that argument.
@@howiehiew Very well said 👍
@@howiehiew Contract isn't exactly the right word since it tends to involve some sort of legality to it, but what I think KR P is getting at is an agreement between two or more parties, which is the justification in and of itself. I think we can all agree that slavery as we usually talk about it wasn't moral exactly because there was no contract, it was enforced with harsh punishment and unfair treatment. It's actually a pretty apt comparison to factory farms where the animals are kept in a place they don't want to be in by the human party, and this I'm sure we can all agree is considered immoral.
But what if the animals are protected and cared for by their owners so that their needs are met while in captivity (ie free range lifestyles)? I think this is what the op is trying to say, that the humans agree to help the animals survive beyond what they would themselves be capable of, and in return the animals agree to become our food when we need to eat.
Yeah, spreading ideas gently is a great, achievable thing we can all do. And also, one way I motivate myself to shop better is to remember that: Every factory animal that I don't buy *is a creature saved,* -- literally I just prevented suffering. It feels very very good.
"Animal torture" is not a good argument for not eating that meat, animals suffer even more in nature. A better argument is how many resources are spent to produce the meat, like water and crops, and also the huge areas that are deforested to keep the cattle and grow their food
Tribes kill each other in nature so theres basically no problem with harming humans either. That line of reasoning is an appeal to nature fallacy.
Modern farming is raising and killing miserable animals at a scale that would never have been possible in "nature" - I would invite you instead to set your benchmark at what is possible and/or ideal in modern civilisation.
@@Exquiredare you basing your statement on US farms? UK farming regulations means food animals have to be treated well. Even down to how they are slaughtered. I've experienced to whole process from birth to death on two different farms. I'm quite happy with the way the animals are raised and killed and still eat meat. I don't however eat veal on principal, as I don't think the way it's reared is right. The same goes for other foods where animals suffer during it's production (Foie gras and others).
I accept there will be unscrupulous farmers who will try to force more profit from their animals by reducing their care standards, but with the UK consumer becoming more aware of what they are eating, food suppliers are now providing information to consumers as to which farm their meat or crops are coming from. In some cases we can even track meat to an actual animal's ID number. The scope for the unscrupulous farmer to operate in is being reduced all the time.
In some parts of the Eastern Europe sometimes kids are "initiated" into adulthood by participating in home-made meat preparation. From slaughter to rousted meet in a single day (yes - family gathers on weekend, slaughters it's own pig they fed and kept and eat it commenting if they raised it well enough). Here there are no doubts how meet is being produced, even kids know meet isn't growing on the trees and animal has to die in order for us to have a delight in our mouths. Also here not all animals are regarded as equal! Cats are not meant to have the same fate as pigs, cows or other animals who have to thank for their present day existence only because they provided meat across centuries. Some animals are meant to suffer because that's the way it is. Some other animals aren't. If you feel bad after eating some pork - go and pet your cat, make it feel good and that's it.
I took a "tour" of a stockyard and slaughterhouse outside of Fort Worth in 1984 and have been vegetarian ever since.
I live near a pork processing plant. I've watched the pigs be driven in and then bought bacon in the store across the street. So yes, I'll eat it.
ruclips.net/video/C1vW9iSpLLk/видео.html
I think this was a really interesting video, but I do also think that the featured researcher has over-simplified the "meat problem." Actually hoping to dive into this issue myself in a series on where our food comes from, because it's so complicated and important.
On the flip side I like the fact that this philosophers making people think about the roots of the morality. It's just pretty mature for her to conclude that I morality is flawed even if we can't explain it
People try to justify unnecessary exploitation and killing of animals in many different ways. But I've never come across even one explanation that is not flawed on some level.
I like to believe that deep in their hearts people really think animals do NOT deserve unnecessary premature death. To be just products, be prisoners, slaves, baby making machines. But it's just too hard to act according to your beliefs - logistically, socially etc. It requires quite a bit of research and will power, so we quickly come up with excuses to feel better about ourselves.
But here's a though experiment:
Just try thinking of a society where unnecessarily killing animals is *not* accepted as normal and you were brought up with that mindset (which most of us hold right now anyway but don't act on it). Would you then go out of your way to pay someone to kill a highly sentient animal for your own pleasure if you can live happily and healthfully on a plant-based diet? Would you do it yourself and how would you feel about that? Would your arguments hold up to scrutiny then?
Try arguing the other point of view and think critically of your arguments. And why you're making them in the first place - is because deep inside you feel bad about eating meat, does it offend you because it goes against your upbringing?
Now try thinking of a society where slavery is accepted and using the same arguments, but justifying exploitation of different races, not species. (If you think it's not the same - name a trait that justifies one and not the other)
And try to think that an alien species came to us and used the same arguments for "harvesting" humans. (same with "it's not the same situation")
One day I realized I was inconsistent with my beliefs and there was nothing I could hold onto, not even using my confirmation bias. So I researched a bit changed my behavior, not my core moral beliefs. Veganism is just too logically sound and consistent.
And if going 100% is too much for you, just try to do your best. Make better choices more often than before, reduce harm you're doing. And know there's a huge positive and supportive community out there, just reach out. www.challenge22.com community is the best, none of that judgemental, angry vegan stereotype crap, just open-mindedness and compassion ;)
The way I see it is this: some animals are meant to be companions and some are meant to be food. It doesn't matter the species to whom the choice is presented, but that it is true that animals are meant to be either option based on the individual in question and the situation they are in at the time.
As long as you respect the animal, I personally don't understand the hesitation. The French gave us our last name, bc we always had meat around. No dissonance in my family 🤣
Thank you for your comment, Mr. Butcher 😂🐄
@@braincraft 🤣 You're welcome! ✌🏻🙇🏻♂️🐕🐺🐔🐷🐻🍽️
@ecosophist It's plausible, in another world, that plant life evolved into intelligence. When those plant aliens get here, yikes 😅😂 I'm just saying, those vegetables are living things too 😜
@ecosophist So what do we do with all the animals if we were to stop eating meat right now? A final feast?
@ecosophist "Not necessary to eat meat" That's debatable and different for each person, not all digestive systems work the same way.
"Meat products lead to suffering"
True, what I'm against is unnecessary suffering.
My dog eats other animals in order to live, the food I bought for her is made out of meat, sometimes I cook some meat to her. Se needs meat to be healthy because dogs are omnivores. She's like us.
I think the conclusion that 'people should analyse their opinions and act accordingly' would have possibly been better than that 'we are intrinsically hypocritical and should just accept it', no?
Yes. The conclusion seemed to be "there's nothing wrong with hypocrisy but it's fun to notice it" rather than "whoah, look at this hypocritical way in which we live, let's change it".
Feels like there is a considerable amount of bias in her presentation. How about a realistic solution that allows for ethical treatment of food animals? It will take a long time to bring around the greedmongers, but it's more realistic than everyone going vegan. Along the lines of training coal miners in renewable energy jobs.
How about lab grown meat, it's both more ethical and safer then traditionally grown meat, people seem to hate it cause they find it "unnatural" but it's, in my opinion, the best solution to this problem.
@@speedy01247 vegans don't hate it, just the process of how it's being tested atm. Were waiting for an ethical solution. However, most vegans probably wouldn't eat it themselves
@@speedy01247 Last I heard it requires fetal cow serum or something to be harvested, so it doesn't sound like it would be eaten by vegans yet.
@@TheAnnaKarpinska I've never heard of any vegans nor vegetarias opposing to lab-grown meat, only from -some- regular meat-consumers. However, I find it to have a very positive response as an idea to most people, getting "the best of both worlds".
how about not needlessly killing animals? We don't view killing humans without causing suffering as moral, why should it be any different with non-human animals
My biggest issue with the discussion of these sorts of conflicts is that they're taken in isolation with no thought to other factors.
To continue with the meat example, if you think factory farming is bad, you may still eat meat because you can't afford a vegan/vegetarian diet that would be sufficiently nutritious so you partially subsist on fast food menus. It's not an individual's fault that our society is so skilled at exploiting nature that meat is cheaper than labor-intensive fresh produce these days. "Meat is bad" shouldn't have to conflict with "dying of malnutrition is bad" but that's the world we live in.
When it comes to fast fashion and sweatshops, saying "sweatshops are bad" and buying clothes anyway aren't necessarily dissonant when you fundamentally cannot avoid benefiting from sweatshop labor due to the fundamental structure of our economy. "Sweatshops are bad" and "I need clothes" especially shouldn't be dissonant because there's so many ways that textiles can be worn and produced without exploiting people half a world away, but unfortunately, again, that's the world we live in.
The concept of cognitive dissonance is a valuable and interesting one but it always irks me when these sorts of psychological concepts are applied only to atomized individuals with no consideration for wider socioeconomic structures or trends, especially when the world we live in distributes freedom of choice through dollar signs. Without a requisite amount of choicebucks it's fundamentally impossible to live up to your ideals given our entire society is fundamentally founded on the exploitation of anything that can generate profit and everyone except those doing the exploiting agree that exploitation is often Bad.
Only way to resolve these dissonances is to fundamentally change the economic system we live in, which is much, much harder than just dealing with the dissonance in the short term to get on with your life in some capacity.
A lot of people don’t even think about the morality when shopping
i asked all of the friends i was gaming with and we don't seem to have the meat paradox. please keep making videos. love you........ that's all.
Being moral on all of the things is honestly exhausting. That is why we as an animal created cognitive dissonance. Pick one or two things that are very important and ignore the rest. I for one will enjoy my bacon that comes from animal slavery as long as I don't see someone kicking the pig for enjoyment.
I love that the conversation is centered around the concept of Cognitive Dissonance. However, it would be very interesting to research WHY the dissonance appears because it is usually the result of social changes pushed by different factors like censorship from a tyrannical government that imposes new values, or a draught that brought famine, etc. I think the key thing regarding Meat is that some animals have been with us to fight off rodents and other smaller animals (cats), or shared food with us and helped to protect us or we just simply coexisted together (dogs). U wouldn't make a dog go vegan cos you'd be putting him at risk. Now, we humans can go vegan and not suffer a lot from it or at all. However, nutritional science that grounds itself on biochemistry is a new thing. Artificial food is a new thing.
This and the rise of egalitarian values for everyone are what makes the Meat Paradox a thing nowadays. I think it is important to distinguish between animals however because an octopus or a squid dont share the history of domestication dogs do. I think people worry about the animals in the middle like pigs and cows and the important conversation is more about HOW to do it and provide solutions instead of taking a moral high ground and eat potatoes, lentils and broccoli every day. Cause I think that's where the conversation surrounding veganism fails - the moral high horse. And the idea that it's either one thing or another, just taints the conversation.
Is neccesary to bring this topic to the table, we have to acknowledge that we are not perfect. On the other hand, we should aim to be a bit more morally consistent over time.
I think an important thing to remember with regard to the part about being less critical of others is that that applies to EVERYONE, since behaving consistently with one’s morals in one respect would not absolve them of the likely myriad of other hypocrisies in their life.
Corruption is a corollary of the meat paradox.
The author, at least in this tiny summary of the book, oversimplified the moral dilemma and shows clear bias and preference. She is correct to point out that there is a moral conflict between bonding with particular animals as cute and pet-like, and others as food and to tolerate more unsavory behaviors. (Even this is more complicated; we tend to prefer different species as pets, natural animals, and livestock, but not completely.) One part where she goes wrong is to strongly imply that the correct morality is that animals are very cute isn't the part worth being skeptical of. She is only skeptical of our eating of the animals, not of our over-indulged cute-ifying of them. I find it to be an even bigger miss to equate killing an animal for food with torture. She doesn't quite exactly say so, but she strongly implies it in a way that seems to say "I didn't say it exactly but I think we both know it's terribly cruel." I suppose we might all be a little tired of getting into the question of whether factory farming is the only way to raise animals, and how can we possibly eat anything but free range, etc.
But I think even worse, for someone who writes a book about cognitive dissonance and morality, is to imply that moral ambiguity on any point isn't just an inherent part of human life. We do that all that time. That's what human morality IS. Purity is nonsense. We do the best we can. The implication that I must be perfectly moral on any point of empathy is that part I have a revulsion to. Mostly because I can't achieve it. No one can. How I wish. How we all wish. And how I wish that this thorny, complicated issue that involves no less than the way we've been comfortable raising livestock or hunting animals in the wild for food for many thousands of years wasn't boiled down to "it's time to finally be a food angel." Sure. When the last human child is removed from sex worker hell or impoverished starvation, I'll circle back around to "maybe it would be kinder not to even kill an animal." The problem of "cognitive dissonance" in this case really comes from a presumption that moral issues are infinite, pure, and resolvable. They cannot be. Really, not ever.
Please don't anyone tell me "eating meat causes climate change." That's, again, an oversimplification. The biological system of a farm needs sustainability, and that means eating far less meat - and using animals as fertilizer machines - rather than eliminating animals entirely for a huge monoculture of crops ripe for problems solved only with climate-destroying methods.
There are a few groups of people in this discussion. Many are still ignorant about what processes get food on our tables. And others, like me, agree with their vegan/vegetarian friends that animal exploitation needs drastic mitigation. Still, I'll eat meat, yes. And I'm not actively looking for arguments in favor of eating meat. So: a paradox? One could argue it is. Cognitive dissonance? No, that's a bit simplistic. Where's the line that defines, ethically, which lives are worth something? Dogs are usually mentioned at this point, but how would you deal with a termite infestation?
If an animal is born with a defined purpose of feeding humans, do you necessarily care if it becomes your food, even in the cases where it's been given a "humane" treatment from beginning to end? I'm not trying to give answers here, just surprised with the use of the term "cognitive dissonance".
Whether it's an animal or a vegetable consumed something dies in order for something else to live. Animals we relate to far easier than a plant or vegetable, we anthropomorphize them, we empathize with them and perhaps most significantly we see a reflection of our own mortality in them.
SunShine Senpai 可愛い Actually I’m factually correct. This planet has a cycle of life and we are all a part of it whether we recognize it or not. Of course that doesn’t mean what and how much we as humans consume hasn’t become increasingly unnatural. We most likely do consume more meat than we need to and certainly we waste far more than we need to.
So many here have missed the mark! Only eat ugly animals. And possibly avoid derailing a worthwhile conversation with a polarizing topic as the context.
The thing is, we are at a point in human history where, we don’t have to hunt for our food anymore. We now have the option to eat what we want because it’s accessible, but when our ancestors were hunting boar in the wild, they didn’t care about how the animal felt, they needed to feed their family. If ancient humans had a McDonald’s just a couple caves away I think the idea that “eating animals is wrong” might be tossed around if they were made consciously aware of the quantity of animals that are being killed for their consumption, or if they were able to eat a “vegan meat” option without having to wait 9 months for rice and beans and carrots and other vegetables to grow, but its unrealistic. They needed to survive.
Because we no longer depend on what we find in the wild to feed our family, we can now choose what items we want to eat or not, because they are readily available.
My moral standpoint is, yes, I care about the animal and it sucks so much that we put animals in the conditions we do to have easily accessible meat, but, we are given the option to choose. Choose to eat it, or choose not to, but if it was your survival, how would you feel then?
"Why did you get meat from animals that were treated like that?"
Woud be my question to the business that gave me that card with my meat. I am more and more going towards game for exactly that reason. Because the animal usually had a natural and fullfilled life until if was suddenly shot and hopefully died a quick death. The probability to eat an animal that was never mistreated in its hole life is way higher here. It also means less meat throughout the week which makes it taste that much better even :D
What is a good way to murder someone who didn't want to die?
You are close to matching my perspective. We should not be cruel, however, it is dangerously naive to pretend avoiding eating meat is moral. It is an avoidance of death. It is a fear of death and nothing more.
@@LotusesGalaxyOcean
Why should anyone refrain from eating a person (perhaps you?) in that case? There's no difference between your fear of death and an animal's fear of death.
Being happy requires a creature to, you know, not be raised for slaughter. In today's time, avoiding meat is DEFINITELY moral.
Being afraid of realities hard edges was my point. You see animals and humans as the same enough to see eating them as heinous. I don't because my priority is sentient human life. Starving humans matter more and until there aren't any animal rights are not going to be high on my priority list. We only have so much life to spend on effecting change. In my book humans rank higher than animals. Morality means next to nothing to a starving man.
@@LotusesGalaxyOcean
Starving people? In the Western World? Give me a break 😂
No one is FORCED to kill animals. Unless of course you are a hunter-gatherer, which I bet $10000 you're not.
Learn to eat your fruits and vegetables for nutrition.
No message has stopped me before
Humans are animals, and animals often times eat other animals. Most omnivores eat both meat and plants/veg/fruit
No other animals have moral agency, so this is a really dumb excuse.
Person: dont eat meat
Apocalypse: person dies eating wild berries
0:56 so, are we not gonna discuss the way that person eats the burger?
Everyone needs to choose for themselves. People shouldn't put there believes on to other people but it's good to be able to evaluate yourself to see what biases you use to make your decisions and beliefs.
Vsauce! Kevin Here,
.. oh wait never mind
This was really interesting. I generally try not to buy meat in the store since I get meat from my father who is a hunter. Hunted meat is better than factory-produced meat in my opinion (both ethically and environmentally). So if I am unable to get meat from my father I basically only eat fish. But I still order meat if I go to a restaurant without hesitation... I guess because we always used to when I was a kid, since going to a restaurant was something special you did on rare occasions.
That is not a real paradox.
I think this all comes down to what the human individual thinks is necessary for optimal survival. He/she will allow any contradictions as long they are in his/her favour.
Will definitely look out for Julia's book!
What an individual thinks is necessary for 'optimal survival' (personal opinion) - this can justify rape, cannibalism, etc. But really there is no moral justification to kill someone when we don't have to, we have so many other options.
Hypocrisy was humanity's largest export
I guess it's a part of growing up.
The more a person acts like an adult, the more it gets used.
If you're young or have decided not be successful you can stay true to your principles.
Or get old but not grow up.
Vanessa, let me explain why I did not like this content so much - it hits close to home. It makes me concerned for many people like me. This topic accompanied a near-psychological-break I had last year. Health problems, despite careful and extended efforts, made it so I could not ignore the fact that meat and fish are the safest foods for ME (and an ever-increasing population, due to the complexities of food intolerance). I had previously fervently held for so long that veganism was my absolute highest morality on every level, and so that needed to ... change... with this new information.
It wasn't easy.
I had to develop an almost ceremonial relationship to eating meat, and focus on the heartfelt respect I have to the animals that "transfer me their life". And yes - life - my nutrition was indeed sending me to an early grave. It's complicated, but I'm working with a group of doctors now and will continue to learn more. I can say I have more energy and willpower "from meat" as a staple in my diet. I am more emotionally stable than I have been since before puberty, I have been able to quit some awfully rutted bad habits (like porn, candy, Facebook...). I've found the confidence to return for graduate school. My fitness has improved. I more deeply revere life, other humans included. My blood test results have normalized. Anecdotally, but objectively, my life has improved.
All considered, I have minimal cognitive dissonance for returning to my previous ways; however, the transformation was absolutely inundated with it. And, this video surely would NOT have helped me a year ago.
There is a lot more that could be said. Please reconsider enforcing a (potentially) dangerous lifestyle. As I have learned, there is a lot of published research about this to consider.
Thank you for listening.
I like the way you describe cognitive dissonance and how people explain their behaviour. I also like your conclusion (to not be defensive about your hypocrisy and be more tolerant of others).
But I’m still not sure meat eating is the best example. To me it seems more like a convenience and short term pleasure thing vs a higher level moral/ethical belief.
Changing your diet requires a lot of discipline. Most people lack that discipline even if they would prefer not to harm animals.
It's like how it was mentioned earlier, the problem is more the industry and how THEY treat the animals. How they are treated and what they eat actually does impact the quality of the meat after the animal is killed. Not to say we can't be more involved, however tackling the big bad corporations is no easy task. Closest standard that most people can go to right now in regards to meat at a common spot like the supermarket is eating grass-fed + non-GMO + non-hormones/antibiotics.
easy solution to the meat paradox is stop caring about animals
What the Meat Paradox says to me is that we all too often fall in line with things simply because they are and don't think about them for ourselves. There's been many occasions where I've seen people that love meat stop eating hot dogs because they've seen the process of making them. Social conditioning is something that's nearly inescapable.. unless we start conditioning people to think for themselves; It's just that we're already "conditioned" to "condition" others and so the cycle continues.
Guilt won't work on me, I eat meat because is food and it's available
A video about "What even IS morality?(and does it even matter)" would be appropriate after this.
What if we didn't think they were cute, like a regular hunter looking a for a meal to survive from a relatively weak pray to ourselves. And on the cute side we think either cute but, what about out all the cute plants that have pretty colors or have flowers while growing and it has been scientifically shown plants can feel "pain" why do you think most plants have defenses like the cactus or thorns on berry bushes or Peppers making chemicals that are toxic but only give us humans advanced heat pain.
So where do we stop, When we can physically see something hurt and dying for our food, or the actual fact that everything dies for something else to live long only to feed something else either immediately by eating it like meat, or natural death and turn into basic compounds like carbon or just used in mulch for new plant too grow.
(Also joke answer: The animals like cows and sheep or other animals that eat the animals that eat plants already ate the plants for us so its double "healthy" lol)
What do you think would happen to all of the animals raised for the slaughter if we didn't raise them for consumption? If we don't have a use for it then a thing is considered a weed, a pest, vermin, etc. This extendeds to all things, including members of our own species. How many species have we driven to extinction this year due to our negligence or apathy?
I'd walk out on the place. Restaurants are not preachers
Fantastic conclusion and wrap up.
Well Im vegetarian so wouldn't have ordered a sausage roll in the first place unless it was vegan one, then Id be very surprised to get that message with it.
Buy cheap clothes ‘cos I can’t afford expensive ones. Eat meat ‘cos I’m an omnivore.
"There is no solution to the meat paradox"
Wat, we just said the solution was to continue lying to ourselves with excuses or go vegan (or have absolutly no other choice but to eat animal products which is super rare).
Not all meat is factory farmed, I find the local grass fed beef from the happy cows that graze in the fields around my town to be far less of a paradox. If the animals are kept in good conditions than the fact that they are killed is the source of the paradox rather than the animals whole life.
"There is no solution to the meat paradox"
Ahahah that is just laughable. Yes there is. There are more and more people realising that there is a solution every day. Just buy different things at the supermarket. That's it.
I don’t care about the animal pain & torture. I only care about the environmental factors. Lab grown meat ftw.
What is it with straw-man paradoxes recently :/ - I don't believe factory farming is OK, and torturing animals is very wrong, and I don't care how "cute" or not the animal is.... however I will pay more for free-range meat, eggs to minimise any cruelty.... and I would ask the restaurant why they were selling meat they believed had involved cruelty and why they either didn't either not sell meat or found a better provider.
Personally, I think that ALL meat involved cruelty. No animal wants to be killed. No "quick ways" of killing can change that. Unless of course, you don't think murder is immoral either. Because humans and animals share the SAME fear of death. Slaughtering animals is no better (in my opinion) than murdering a human.
I will, however try meat for the first time when we can finally grow it in a lab viably, no killing required.
@@zutaca2825
Totally agree with you on that!
Great Video. A phrase came into mind: Intellectually Honest about Hypocrisy. Only the person knows truly. It’s a great topic for discussion and exchange of ideas.
I know it wasn't the point but I couldn't stop thinking about it: is being cute a good enough reason to not harm something? Some animals are not cute. Or some people.
I eat meat and animal products such as milk and I don't feel any need to express discomfort related to the fact to keep my face. I live in Europe.
To push back a bit, just because I can, I could see the inconsistency being squared off. People have been known to even eat other people if they're desperate enough. If you establish an ethics meter that changes in relation to something like your hunger level or your empathy level, then you could easily dismiss the argument for a paradox - This cow is cute, but I'm also hungry. Or, this cat is cute, but I don't care enough about its suffering. Because, ultimately, that IS what you're saying when you decide to eat it.