I realize this is a rather long post, but I would love to get your thoughts on it. I admit my use of the word “religion” in the title for this post may be misleading. I am referring to a belief system in our culture that in many ways parallels the psychology of theists.

 

According to Melanie Joy, Ph.D, Ed.M, a social psychologist and professor of psychology at the University of Massachusetts, meat eating is an ideology, or a belief system.

 

She says, “Most of us who have grown up eating meat don’t realize that every time we sit down to our food, we are acting in accordance with an invisible belief system that has shaped our thoughts, preferences, feelings and behaviors. We aren’t aware of how we have been conditioned to eat animals without considering the implications of our choices on ourselves or on others - or to even realize we are making choices at all.”

 

“Meat production and consumption, the most far-reaching and widely supported form of nonhuman animal exploitation, remains an unnamed ideology.”

 

“This invisible belief system, carnism, has created the illusion that when we eat meat we are making our choices freely. But carnism is structured to enable humane people to participate in inhumane practices without realizing what they’re doing, to block our awareness so that we unknowingly act against our own interests and the interests of others.”

 

“We have, however, recognized that the opposing dietary standpoint—vegetarianism—is, indeed, an ideology. For this reason, we do not call vegetarians "plant-eaters" or "non-meat-eaters" because we understand that vegetarianism, though its principles are manifested in the act of abstaining from the consumption of flesh, is actually a philosophy in which the subjugation of other animals is considered unnecessary and unjust.

This inequality of ideological identification demonstrates our collective meat bias. It is, in fact, quite common to label only those beliefs which run counter to the dominant culture. We assume that it is not necessary to assign a term to ourselves when we adhere to the mainstream way of thinking, as though its prevalence makes it an intrinsic part of life rather than a widely held opinion. Meat eating, though culturally dominant, reflects a choice that is not espoused by everybody.

Some people refer to meat-eaters as carnivores; yet, human meat-eaters are actually omnivores, as they consume both flesh and plants. Moreover, the terms carnivore and omnivore suggest a biological predisposition toward flesh, while contemporary, wide-scale meat eating is not a physiological necessity but an ideological choice; the millions of healthy vegetarians who have persisted throughout the centuries are testament to this. Neither carnivore nor omnivore expresses the beliefs beneath the behavior.

For the reasons listed above, I have chosen to employ the terms carnism and carnist to the ideology of meat production/consumption and its proponents. Carnism stems from the Latin carn, meaning flesh or body, and is the root in carnage. Fleshist might have been appropriate, but flesh has fewer connotations suggestive of slaughter and this label may be too disconcerting and removed from the socially accepted carnivore for carnists to be willing to apply to themselves. And the term meatist reinforces the social construction of meat in which "meat" is perceived as synonymous with "food."


By naming the belief system which underlies the acts of meat production and consumption we are better able to acknowledge that slaughtering nonhuman animals for human consumption is not a given but a choice; a choice that is based upon an ideology in which the domination and exploitation of other animals is considered a natural human privilege. To say "I eat meat" or "I am a meat-eater" denotes an action devoid of a philosophical viewpoint, whereas to say "I am a carnist," describes a choice, an identification with a particular belief system. Using the verb, eat, in the labels meat-eater or even flesh-eater places the focus of the consumption of other animals on what one does, rather than what one is.”

 

In her book, “Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows”, Dr. Joy explains the process through which carnists use psychic numbing to cope with the moral disconnect between the common belief that it is wrong to cause needless suffering and the act of causing animals to suffer needlessly so that we can eat them.

 

Psychic numbing: “we disconnect, mentally and emotionally,from our experience; we ‘numb’ ourselves. [...] Psychic numbing is adaptive, or beneficial, when it helps us to cope with violence. But it becomes maladaptive, or destructive, when it is used to enable violence.”

 

On both an individual and institutional level, we engage in a number of defense mechanisms that help us to achieve psychic numbing:

 

 -  Denial: Also called “practical invisibility,” denial is the process by which the horrific realities of “meat” (and egg and dairy) production are literally kept invisible to us. For example, we “grow” billions of chickens, turkeys, pigs, cows, lambs, etc. for food every year; but where are they!? Few of us rarely, if ever, witness these animals grazing the land, rearing their offspring, sunning themselves in the grass or preening in the dirt. But they’re out there: crammed by the tens of thousands into massive, windowless buildings, located in large complexes on the outskirts of town. These animals are trucked to and from slaughter in unmarked vans; their only exposure to the outdoors comes when they await sale or death, on the auction block or at the slaughterhouse. Practically speaking, they remain invisible to us, as does their suffering. Because many of us enjoy eating “meat,” eggs and milk, this is how we like it.

 

 -  Avoidance: The counterpart to denial, avoidance involves “symbolic invisibility”; it is “knowing without knowing.” The animal agriculture industry – with no small amount of help from the other major social institutions, such as the government and news media – feed us ridiculous, transparent lies about “meat” production, and we eagerly gobble them up. "Humane meat" is an oxymoron:  labels such as “organic,” “free range,” “grass fed,” etc. are rendered meaningless through industry lobbying and self-policing, and besides, no unnecessary death can ever be called “humane.” While the government has ostensibly established myriad rules regarding food safety, animal welfare, and environmental responsibility, again, these rules remain full of loopholes and usually go unenforced. For example, chickens aren’t considered “animals” under either the Animal Welfare Act or the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act.

 

 -  Justification: We use a series of myths in order to convince ourselves of the “justness” of carnism. These myths typically involve the 3 Ns, as Joy refers to them:

 

Normal – Carnism has become normalized, such that its tenets are social norms. Social norms are both descriptive (telling us how things are now) and prescriptive (dictating to us how things ought to be). But just like religious belief, just because something is normal, or common, doesn’t make it right.

 

Natural – If something is “natural,” it’s assumed to be “justifiable”: “The way ‘natural’ translates to ‘justifiable’ is through the process of naturalization. [...] When an ideology is naturalized, its tenets are believed to be in accordance with the laws of nature.” “Natural” = “the way things are meant to be.” But I think many of us can easily point out the“naturalistic fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

 

Necessary – Closely tied to the supposed “naturalness” of carnism, “meat’s” perceived “necessity” makes it seem inevitable; not a choice. But clearly “meat” consumption is a choice – in industrialized nations, anyhow – as any vegan or vegetarian can attest.

 

 - Objectification: Via objectification, we reduce living, sentient beings to nothing more than objects; we objectify them. Clearly, a cow is nothing like a television set – but both are considered pieces of property in our “modern,” “civilized” society. Objectification is even apparent in our language when we refer to animals as “it” instead of as “he” or “she” as if they are inanimate objects.

 

 - Deindividualization: Through deindividualization, we strip animals of their individual identities, viewing them as pieces of a group and nothing more. One individual in the group is thought of as indistinguishable from all the rest; thus, the singular sentient beings become unfamiliar abstractions. (This is why Americans recoil at the thought of eating dog meat; most of us have either lived with or known at least one dog on a personal level. Dogs are individuals, familiars, whereas cows, pigs, fishes and chickens are not.)

 

 - Dichotomization: Dichotomization involves grouping animals into two distinct, often diametrically opposed, categories: food/not food, cute/ugly, dirty/clean. These categories are usually arbitrary and based on our own prejudices and stereotypes rather than any semblance of reality. Along with objectification and deindividualization, dichotomization allows us to “distance” ourselves from“food” animals at will.

 

Here is nice video promo for the book that makes this point pretty well:

 

 

 

 - Rationalization: To rationalize a behavior is to attempt to provide a rational explanation for a behavior that is, at its core, irrational. Animal agriculture is wasteful, unsustainable, harmful to human health and the environment, and – above all else – inherently cruel to the billions of nonhuman animals who are enslaved and killed for nothing more than human “taste” and “convenience” and corporate profits. Yet, our culture is replete with rationalizations for this most irrational of business and ethical models. Even otherwise rational people come up with crazy rationalizations when presented with even the idea of veganism –“don’t plants feel pain too” or “humans have eaten meat for thousands of years.” Yeah, so? Humans have raped and murdered for thousands of years too. Does that make it okay?

 

 - Dissociation: Described by Joy as “the heart of psychic numbing,” dissociation “is psychologically and emotionally disconnecting from the truth of our experience; it is the feeling of not being fully ‘present’ or conscious.” Often times, dissociation  is triggered by a traumatic experience, for example, experiencing or witnessing a physical assault. Given that “meat” production involves the assault and murder of tens of billions of sentient beings per year – and “meat”- eating is, literally, the consumption of a once-living, once-feeling individual – it makes sense that the same psychological defense mechanism that protects us from reliving our own distressful experience also shields us from the uncomfortable truth that, with every animal-based meal, we are directly participating in another being’s living (and dying) hell.

 

Anyway, that’s it. Sorry for the long post. If you read the whole thing, I would love to hear your thoughts. Thanks.

Views: 1711

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Facetious: Treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant.

 

I see.

To you this is a serious issue.  To others it is a matter of do I want to eat meat, yes, so I'll eat meat.  The issue of treating animals who were specifically raised as food "humanely" does not concern me.  And I would argue it does not concern most people, though that is just a guess.  I am not saying animals should be specifically tortured or anything before being killed, certainly not, but what is the purpose of making sure that livestock live out their days in a barn or a pen with a nice view or eye-pleasing wallpaper?

 

Desiring and having no qualms about eating meat does not equal a belief system.  Is it possible to live a healthy life specifically without eating meat?  Yes, I suppose it is, in a few places such as the United States.  But just because it's one possible way to structure your diet does not mean it's the best or only way to do so.  Animals are not people.  Some animals, through custom or their level of cuteness or whatever, have been deemed off limits for food.  Some animals are pets, some are food, and a few are both.

 

I don't know, you have said a couple times that you are not trying to change anyone's mind but I think you're being a tad disingenuous, that seems to be what you would like to do.  I don't really think it's a moral issue.  It is a preference issue.

When our behaviors harm others they are moral issues, not preferences. You may raise your kids however you want, but as soon as you start abusing them it becomes a moral issue. Society is right to step in an protect children from abuse. In a similar way, society is right to step in and protect animals from abuse. For example, setting a cat on fire would be considered immoral and our society would try to prevent you from doing so. But farmed animals are not afforded the same consideration as dogs and cats. The reason is because of a dominant belief system in our culture that arbitrarily defines some animals as worthy of protection and others as unworthy.
Is eating an animal acceptable to you on the basis that it is a different species? To what extent does the animals' capacity to feel pain and to suffer effect your judgement?

Yes, I think it is reasonable to say that plants are incapable of suffering the way that animals, including human animals, are capable of suffering. If you would call the cops on your neighbor for sawing the legs off kittens but not for mowing his lawn you agree with me that animals have more moral standing than plants.

 

Lab grown meat detached from a sentient individual would be morally acceptable to me. How about you?

 

Cruelty and suffering are inherent in milk production. Like all mammals, cows only produce milk when they are pregnant or nursing, so they are kept in a constant cycle of forced pregnancy. When their bodies wear out from repeated births and milking they are considered "spent" and sent to slaughter - usually when they are 5-6 years old. Cows can live to be 25. Dairy cows' calves are taken away from them shortly after birth, so that the milk (literally taken from a baby) can be sold for human consumption. The males are often sold for veal production. Many veal calves are confined by the neck in a narrow wooden stalls unable to turn around, run, stretch or groom properly - in order to produce soft muscle tissue. They are fed an artificial milk replacement intended to produce borderline anemia to produce pale flesh. Dairy is like liquid veal. 75% of the human population is lactose intolerant. Dairy is a choice. Dairy is a moral choice.

 

Wool is a moral choice. Warning, potentially shocking video on modern Australian wool production (where most of the world's wool comes from): www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DNiJdZxi1Kd4" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=http%3A//www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DNiJdZxi1Kd4

 

I draw a moral line at needless suffering. Where do you draw the line? Why?

No, I draw the line at causing needless suffering. And I think most people agree with me in principle that causing needless suffering is immoral. Some would say sadistic if the suffering is caused for one's own enjoyment. The problem is that our dominant cultural belief system blinds us to the discrepancy between our professed moral values and our actual behaviors.

 

I worked at a farmed animal sanctuary for several years. But I wouldn't have to work with animals to know that causing them to suffer needlessly is immoral. I don't have kids, but that doesn't mean it is okay for people to torture them.

Interesting question. I've already said that meat divorced from a sentient being would be morally acceptable to me. But consider these points:

 

Domestication does often cause a degree of needless suffering. Pure bred dogs often have congenital health issues. Unlike wild sheep, domestic sheep can no longer shed their wool naturally and can suffer and die if they aren't shorn regularly. Holstein cattle have been bred to be so large they often suffer from hip problems. Broiler chickens, raised for meat, are bred to grow so fast they literally cripple under their own weight. Some die from heart attacks or organ failure. In the wild, chicken lay about 25-30 eggs per year. Modern layer hens are bred and manipulated to lay 250-275 eggs per year. Calcium depletion from egg production causes many to have osteoporosis and broken bones are common.

 

Range cattle are usually dehorned and castrated without painkillers. At slaughter, they are visibly terrified, and shot in the head with a captive bolt gun to "stun" them. But Temple Grandin, a renowned slaughterhouse designer, has said that in US slaughterhouse between 5-45% of cattle are skinned and dismembered while fully conscious and able to feel pain.

 

A video showing visible fear in a steer being led to slaughter, especially after he hears the screams of the cow ahead of him.

 

 

 

9 billion chickens are slaughtered in the US each year. Chickens are excluded from the Humane Slaughter Act and there are no federal laws protecting chickens or other farmed animals during their lives on the farm. Most states specifically exclude farmed animals from anti-cruelty laws making it so farmers can and do treat pigs, cows and chickens in ways that would warrant felony level cruelty to animals charges if the victims were dogs or cats.

 

Why do you think that is? Do you think it could be based on a belief system that arbitrarily values some animals over others?

My objection is to causing needless suffering. How would you propose eating meat in a society where plant-based alternatives are readily available in such a way that doesn't cause needless suffering for animals?

 

And let me also ask you this, is your (presumed) objection to slavery the way that some slaves are treated? Or do you object to slavery on the basis that it is wrong to deprive humans of their freedom without due process of law?

 

If it is wrong to deprive humans of their freedom, why is it okay to deprive other sentient beings of their freedom?

 

sentient: as in able to experience physical and emotional suffering, not the Star Trek definition of the word.

It is unreasonable to assume that the world would ever go vegan overnight. But it is reasonable to think that as awareness grows that more and more people will choose to go vegan. As demand for animal products decreases fewer farmed animals will be bred. Eventually, there would be a more manageable number of farmed animals. Some could be cared for at farmed animal shelters, others may be reintroduced into the wild. But I don't see any good reason to keep farmed animals in a perpetual cycle of abuse, suffering and slaughter.

It's only fair to look at both sides of the story. You've chosen the last minutes. The cows in this video look all too happy to hang out in the barn away from the heat.

 

 

 

I don't see how keeping animals cool makes up for needlessly slicing their throats open and allowing them to bleed to death. 

 

But as long as we are looking at both sides of issues, here is a picture of slave housing: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3086/3148494019_1c2dc290c4.jpg. Notice how cozy it is? Like a vacation cabin. Does the fact that slaves had housing to keep them cool in the summer and warm in the winter make slavery okay?

 

Our how about this pig housing? Does the fact that the pigs are protected from the elements make what is happening in this video okay? http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube...

Daniel, predatory animals must eat meat in order to survive therefore it is not a moral choice for them. It is necessity. Humans have a choice. We can choose not eat other animals and still be healthy and thrive. That is the difference.

 

Anthropomorphism is attributing human characteristics on non-humans. The ability to feel pain, suffering, fear and sorrow are not unique to humans. These feelings and emotions are common in the animal kingdom.

 

Ignoring the fact that cows have 4 limbs, 2 eyes, a nose, a mouth, a tongue, a heart, a brain, a central nervous system and other physical characteristics similar to humans for fear of being "anthropomorphic" doesn't make any more sense than ignoring the similarities in sentience that we also share with cows and other animals.

 

In the Old Testament, women were afforded certain protections (from rape for example) because they were the property of men. It was in the interest of men that women were protected. In modern times we understand that women deserve to be protected from needless cruelty for their own sake. I argue that non-human animals also deserve to be protected from needless cruelty and suffering for their own sake.

RSS

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service