rainbow
Dec 20th, 2011, 11:12 AM
http://www2.psy.uq.edu.au/~uqbbast1/Bastian%20et%20al%20PSPB%20in%20press.pdf
A group of volunteers were asked to do a series of psychological tests that, in essence, demonstrated that meat-eaters subconsciously rationalise their behaviour by attributing diminished intellectual resources to animals they are willing to eat. It appears that their willingness to recognise the intellect and emotional capacity of an animal depends less on the actual capacities of the animal in question and more on whether or not they associate the animal with food. If they are asked to think of the animal in a way connected with eating it, they attribute fewer capacities to the animal. Thus, the group asked to eat a sheep thought that sheep were less intelligent than cows. The group asked to eat a cow thought that cows were less intelligent than sheep. The ability to justify abhorrent behaviour through denying agency to the victim is fascinating as it illustrates not only the doublethink behind meat-eating, but also the capacity for things such as genocide. (Most perpetrators of genocide allow themselves to believe that their victims are sub-human and worthy of extermination, in ways that, psychologically speaking, are not so different from the dissonance that allows people to love some animals and murder others.) What confuses me in all of this is how we can claim intellectual and moral superiority over other species when it is clear that humans are capable of such facile delusion and such morally dubious (despicable?) behaviour.
A group of volunteers were asked to do a series of psychological tests that, in essence, demonstrated that meat-eaters subconsciously rationalise their behaviour by attributing diminished intellectual resources to animals they are willing to eat. It appears that their willingness to recognise the intellect and emotional capacity of an animal depends less on the actual capacities of the animal in question and more on whether or not they associate the animal with food. If they are asked to think of the animal in a way connected with eating it, they attribute fewer capacities to the animal. Thus, the group asked to eat a sheep thought that sheep were less intelligent than cows. The group asked to eat a cow thought that cows were less intelligent than sheep. The ability to justify abhorrent behaviour through denying agency to the victim is fascinating as it illustrates not only the doublethink behind meat-eating, but also the capacity for things such as genocide. (Most perpetrators of genocide allow themselves to believe that their victims are sub-human and worthy of extermination, in ways that, psychologically speaking, are not so different from the dissonance that allows people to love some animals and murder others.) What confuses me in all of this is how we can claim intellectual and moral superiority over other species when it is clear that humans are capable of such facile delusion and such morally dubious (despicable?) behaviour.