Lately I have come to reflect on the weird discrepancy when it comes to people’s compassion for animals while at the same time they consume their flesh. It seems to me as a kind of mental duality where people have two opposing or conflicting thoughts. Perhaps this is why many people are so strongly against the idea of veganism and vegans – it requires people to confront their paradoxal thoughts, causing discomfort and unease about themselves.
Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance is a theory, developed by psychologist Leon Festinger in the 1950s, posits that individuals are motivated to reduce this dissonance by altering their cognitions, beliefs, or behaviors to create consistency. This can involve rationalizing or justifying one’s choices, seeking information that supports existing beliefs, or changing one’s attitudes or behaviors to align with new information. It is a psychological concept that refers to the state of psychological discomfort or tension that arises when an individual holds contradictory thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes.
Avoiding the discomfort
People use various rationales and coping mechanismsm to counter the discomfort of eating meat and alleviate their cognitive dissonance. These justifications help reconcile the conflicting beliefs and behaviors surrounding animal affection and meat consumption.
Cultural and Social Norms
In many societies meat consumption is deeply ingrained and considered a cultural norm. Eating meat as a routine or customary helps avoiding the uncomfortable thoughts and aligns with societal expectations and traditions.
Health and Nutrition
Many believe that consuming meat is necessary for optimal health and nutrition. They may rely on the perception that meat provides essential nutrients like protein, vitamins, and minerals. Health-related justifications can help alleviate cognitive dissonance by prioritizing personal well-being over ethical considerations.
Lack of Awareness or Disconnect
Many people have limited exposure to the realities of animal agriculture and may not fully comprehend the ethical implications. This lack of awareness or a disconnect between animal affection and meat consumption can contribute to cognitive dissonance.
Psychological Defense Mechanisms
Individuals may employ defense mechanisms, such as rationalization or denial, to reduce cognitive dissonance. Rationalization involves constructing logical arguments or explanations to justify meat consumption. Denial involves minimizing or dismissing the ethical concerns associated with animal agriculture, often by distancing oneself from the process or assuming that animals do not possess the same level of sentience as humans.