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.