When it comes to dietary-centered discussions between non-vegans and vegans, things can
easily become heated. From academic one-upmanship of the most recent research to the far more
informal frenzied exchange of sardonic memes and crafty YouTube comments,
it's safe to say: “words are had.”
Well, one team of international scientists decided to analyze the arguments from
the meat-eating camp by bringing out the big guns: the N-Words.
Hi it's Emily from Bite Size Vegan and welcome to another vegan nugget. Humans have a wide
array of reasons for eating animals. From taste to tradition to nutrition, to the absurd
assertion that animals want to be eaten—yes that’s a thing and it’s far more common
than you may think.
But what’s behind this need to justify, explain and rationalize the consumption of animals?
Why do omnivores often offer up unbidden impassioned defenses of their dietary practices
upon learning someone is vegan—whether they be passive apologies for consuming meat in
their presence or outright attacks and challenges?
Well, nothing provokes our knee-jerk defenses or highlights our human capacity for award-worthy
rationalizations, and impassioned justifications, quite like the perceived judgment
of behaviors we’re already insecure about.
Despite the seemingly endless iterations of meat-eating defenses, a similar refrain has
been coursing through them for thousands of years. (Yes, thousands).
In 2015, an international team of researchers produced the first empirical systematic study
of meat-consumption rationalizations, more or less corralling the multitudes of justifications
into four main categories, denoted by what they call the 4N’s:
that it’s Natural, Normal, Necessary, and Nice.
Building off of the 3N’s presented in Dr. Melanie Joy’s landmark text
Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs and Wear Cows, the team added the 4th N of “Nice” to capture “the
enjoyment people derive from eating meat,” which they said “is a major barrier to reducing
meat consumption and/or adopting a vegetarian diet,” as they found that, “meat-eaters…often
appeal to the tastiness of meat, or the hedonic pleasure that they derive from it, as a justification
for its continued consumption,” a rationale not encompassed within Joy’s original 3 strata.
In this video, I’ll be presenting an overview of this particular study, the drive behind
the human need for rationalization, as well as touch upon the broader implications of
the 4Ns—which reach far beyond the realm of dietary dissonance into
“Many historical practices, from slavery to sexism.”
Perhaps most controversially, the study strove to address the question: are omnivores inherently
more tolerant of social inequality within their own species?
Let’s start with a quick look at the 4N’s as defined within the study’s parameters,
again with the first 3 taking inspiration from Dr. Joy’s Three N’s of Justification.”
N #1: Eating Meat Is Natural
Our first N “Appeals to biology, biological hierarchy, natural selection, human evolution,
or the naturalness of eating meat.”
Examples include: It is natural for humans to eat meat; Humans are carnivores; We’ve
always eaten meat and/or have evolved to do so; We have canine teeth; Animals eat other
animals; Animals are here for us to eat; et cetera
N #2: Eating Meat Is Necessary
The 2nd N “Appeals to the necessity of meat for survival, strength, development, health,
animal population control, or economic stability.”
Examples include: Humans need meat to survive; Meat provides good nutrients; Our bodies need
the protein; Protein is a necessary part of our diet; and, one of my personal favorites:
Because if we didn’t, there would be an overabundance of certain animals.
I made a video about that. A while ago. I dance in it.
N #3: Eating Meat Is Normal
The 3rd N “Appeals to dominant societal norms, normative behavior,
historical human behavior, or socially constructed food pyramids.”
Examples include: Society says it’s okay; I was raised eating meat; Meat is culturally
accepted or an important part of tradition; A lot of other people eat meat;
It’s abnormal NOT to eat meat; et cetera
And finally the additional N #4: Eating Meat Is Nice
This new N was introduced to capture “Appeals to the tastiness of meat,
or that it is fulfilling or satisfying.”
Examples include: It tastes good; It’s delicious; Tastes great (I mean bacon...come on)
[yes, that’s actually in the official study. Table1];
Meat adds so much flavor to a meal it does not make sense to leave it out”, “The best tasting food
is normally a meat-based dish; Meals without meat would just be bland and boring; et cetera
It’s important to note that a number of objections and diversion tactics fall a bit
outside the realm of the 4Ns. In the first two studies, wherein respondents offered spontaneous
justifications, categories of Humane Slaughter, Religion, Sustainability, Various Miscellany
and the outright rejection of the study’s premise were recorded.
While they subsequently included concepts of religion, hierarchy and fate within the
“Natural” category and health arguments within the “Necessary,” at the study’s
outset, the team clarified that while “there are numerous strategies available to omnivores
to bring their beliefs and behavior in line, including denying that animals used as food
suffer or that such animals are worthy of moral concern,” their goal was to focus
on the “common, yet under-studied mechanism [of] rationalization.”
Unlike straight up denials of animal sentience, willful ignorance or passive avoidance of what
we do to animals—essentially the “I don’t see it so it doesn’t happen” mentality—“
rationalization involves providing reasonable justifications for one’s behavior when it
comes under scrutiny or criticism, or when one’s behavior is perceived as discrepant
with an integral aspect of one’s character.”
So what were the results? To go in depth, please see the blog post for this video linked
in the description, but some of the main findings were as follows:
Overall, as expected, “omnivores had the highest 4N scores, followed by semi-vegetarians.”
(meaning people who only eat some animals…apparently).
“Vegetarians and dietary and lifestyle vegans had the lowest 4N scores.”
Men endorsed the 4Ns more strongly than did women.
Men also engaged in more direct justification strategies, while women tended towards “indirect
strategies of dissociating or avoiding thoughts of animal suffering.”
In regards to whether “individuals…who consume higher quantities of meat…tend to
be more supportive of inequality in group relationships” and “endorse anti-egalitarian values,"
they found, as did previous research, that “meat justification appears to be related
to inequality justification.”
The researchers invoked Dr. Joy’s examples of the 3Ns employment across others issues,
from slavery to women’s suffrage. “Opponents of women’s suffrage… appealed to the necessity
of denying women the vote to prevent ‘irreparable damage’ to the nation, to the natural superiority
of male intelligence, and to the historical normalness of male-only voting as
“designed by our forefathers.”
In the end, it’s the reasons behind the rationalizations, the very need for them at
all that are the most profound aspect of this entire issue. It’s something I’ve gone
into in depth in many of my videos, including this revealing speech, along with others I’ve
listed in the video description below.
Living in a state of cognitive dissonance wherein our actions directly conflict with
our own professed morals and values, causes extreme dis-ease within us.
Eating animals is, in essence, living a double life. Attempting to be animal lovers and animal killers.
To see ourselves as good people while we pay others to carry out barbaric acts of cruelty
we would never directly inflict upon another being.
This is what the study’s creators termed the “meat paradox.”
Omnivores are left with the choice of either changing their behaviors to align with their values by ceasing
to eat animals and their byproducts, or manipulating their perception of reality in such a way
that it at least appears that their behaviors align with their values.
Not surprisingly, the majority of the world chooses the latter. Because changing our behavior
when it comes to eating animals means confronting head-on our complicity in their enslavement,
torture, and murder. It means facing the horrors we’ve supported and vehemently defended.
It means looking ourselves in the mirror with outright honesty.
And brining up protein, desert islands, canines, traditions, the wisdom of the masses, and all
the litany of rationalizations, justifications and avoidances, is by far an easier and safer choice.
There is bliss in ignorance. For the ignorant.
I hope that this video was helpful, and perhaps even prompts the slightest moment of reflection
at the aspects of our behavior we strive so ardently to justify.
Please share it around to spark discussion and I’d love to hear your thoughts in the
comments below. Do give the video a like if you liked it and subscribe for more vegan
content every Monday, Wednesday and some Fridays. To support messages like this, see the support
links below or join us in the Nugget Army on Patreon via the link in the sidebar.
Now go live vegan, own up to your actions, and I’ll see you soon.
There's a stink bug that keeps flying. He's haning out on the light right now.
Whoop! There he goes!
Ahh!
Dude, you're freaking me out!
You're making me feel very unvegan. When you fly at me and it scares me
because I'm supposed to love all creatures and you're scaring me a little bit, when you do that.
Alright little dude, I'm taking you outside.