The truth is, animal cruelty is all around us. However, the connection between this cruelty and our daily decisions is surprisingly well hidden. The way people respond to animal suffering differs greatly depending on the species of animal. For example, most people would not hesitate to angrily condemn a dog abuser, and rightfully so. But in most cases, people fail to acknowledge that animal agriculture is by far the greatest source of animal cruelty on earth. [1] Without acknowledging this, it is difficult to become consciously aware that the consumption of animal products is accretive to the system of supply and demand which perpetuates suffering on a global scale.
It is important to note that consumers of animal products are generally not knowingly responsible for this cruelty, and to label them as monsters is unfair. It was not the consumer’s choice to have been raised in a society with blind spots when it comes to piecing together the ethical implications of their food. Moreover, many specious claims have evolved to distract consumers from uncomfortable truths. For example, it is common for people to believe it self-evident that slaughtering a dog is objectively worse than slaughtering a cow. However, the fact that we have non-food relationships with certain animals doesn’t make it more cruel to slaughter them than it does to slaughter animals unfamiliar to us and of a different species. This is especially true because of accumulated scientific evidence showing that the capacity for both physical and emotional animal suffering across a wide range of species is far greater than most people assume and potentially similar to our own capacity to suffer. [2]
In other words, does a dog suffer any more than a pig during slaughter simply because we have an emotional connection with it? Definitely not. If we can agree this is the case, then why are self-proclaimed animal lovers turning a blind eye to the suffering of certain species to satiate their tastebuds whilst being outraged by clips of animal cruelty on the internet? The term which describes the psychology behind this is called cognitive dissonance.
Cognitive dissonance [3] is a phenomenon coined by Leon Festinger at the beginning of the 1950s. It refers to the mental and emotional strain that results from holding two conflicting beliefs, values, or attitudes. Festinger argued that people would resolve this internal inconsistency by subconsciously selecting information that matches their own moral narrative, an effect known as cognitive bias. When asked to morally distinguish a cow from a pet, people typically use the argument that farm animals like cows are bred for the sole purpose of human consumption and therefore do not deserve the same consideration. However, anyone making these claims must be prepared to apply this logic to other sentient life. For example, using this line of reasoning, dog fighting is morally permissible because the dogs involved are bred for that purpose.
Another way people try to justify their habits is by claiming that animals do not have the cognitive abilities or capacity for reflective thought that humans do. This is true, but again, this logic is not consistent when applied to humans. For example, a person with a mental disability does not have the same cognitive abilities as other humans, but this certainly does not invalidate their moral standing. The same applies to dogs, cats, horses, dolphins, or any other species humans resonate deeply with.
The conclusion which can be drawn from this is that, whenever you feel upset, outraged or disturbed by acts of animal cruelty, just remember that every time animal products are purchased, a contribution is made to an unimaginably vast system of animal suffering (not to mention environmental degradation – more on that in a future post). This post was not created to shame consumers of animal products, but to highlight an inherent logical inconsistency which will hopefully help people question the morality of seemingly inconsequential daily food decisions.
“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” -Arthur Schopenhauer
[1] https://animalequality.org/news/why-factory-farming-is-the-largest-cause-of-animal- abuse-in-history
[2] CBP-9423.pdf (parliament.uk) – UK Parliament Animal Sentience Bill, page 8
There are so many incredible options now for meat eaters to switch to a plant based diet. 💖
Excellent article, well done Leonardo in exposing one of many huge (in)human hypocrisies. Steve A