Underlying Differences Between Conscientious Omnivores and Vegetarians in the Evaluation of Meat and Animals
As the consumption of so-called “ethically produced meat” continues to rise, the differences between “Conscientious Omnivores” (COs) and vegetarians / vegans (known together here as veg*ns) becomes increasingly useful to animal advocates. This study surveyed a variety of COs and veg*ns, to find out how they view themselves, animals, and meat. The results show that there are significant ethical differences between COs and veg*ns, especially when it comes to self-identity, and how they view animals in relation to themselves.
How do “Conscientious Omnivores” (COs) and vegetarians / vegans (known together as veg*ns) see themselves and animals? Though it could be said that the two different groups share common ethical ground in not wanting to see animals suffer, the COs willingness to continue consuming meat represents a significant divergence. In order to better understand how these two groups of people vary in their ethics, and their views towards meat and animals, researcher Hank Rothgerber surveyed nearly two hundred people who fall into those categories, and tried to answer the seemingly simple question: “what, if anything, distinguishes those who choose conscientious omnivorism as opposed to veg*nism as a principled stand against factory farming?” What Rothgerber found was that, even when COs and veg*ns both opposed factory farming, their attitudes towards animals and meat could still be very different.
The main contrast between COs and veg*ns would appear to be a simple ethical conclusion: COs believe that “killing animals for food is acceptable provided that the animals have not suffered.” However, this belief was very strongly tied to COs attitudes towards living animals and meat. COs who believe that killing animals is justified also tended not to view living animals favorably, and did not find meat disgusting (which makes sense). Veg*ns, on the other hand, tended to view living animals more favorably, and have a higher rate of “meat disgust.” Interestingly, when the study controlled results “for animal favorability and meat disdain, there were no differences between COs and veg*ns in their judgment of the acceptability of killing animals for food.” In other words, “it is attitudes about animals and meat that constitute the critical differences between the groups,” not necessarily the ethics involved in eating meat itself.
What does this mean for animal advocates? Curiously, one of the questions not answered by this study was the issue of causality: “that is, do the attitudinal and identity differences discovered here cause differences in diet, or do the different dietary practices cause attitudinal and identity differences?” A practical implication of this for advocates is that if the attitudes lead to the dietary choices, “then those wishing to curtail factory-farmed meat intake in others may promote conscientious omnivorism rather than veg*nism to those who especially love the taste of meat and have less affection toward animals.” Of course, for many veg*ns, this suggestion would be an ethical non-starter, but that is what the findings suggest. This research offers some rather interesting conclusions, and begins to chart the territory around COs’ ethics: “it is not simply that COs enjoy meat more than veg*ns; they are also less favorable toward animals. The paradox is that COs like animals enough to refrain from eating them indiscriminately but not enough to be discouraged by slaughterhouse practices and the act of killing animals.” How much the enjoyment of eating meat actually influences COs’ tolerance for animal suffering is not fully revealed, but it could be a great avenue for future research.
Original Abstract:
As criticisms of factory farming continue to mount, an increasing number of individuals have changed their existing dietary practices. Perhaps the two most important options for those reacting against industrial farming are (1) vegetarianism/veganism (i.e., veg*nism), the avoidance of animal flesh/all animal products; and (2) conscientious omnivorism (CO), the consumption of meat or fish only when it satis- fies certain ethical standards. While the former group has recently received much attention in the social science literature, studies specifically examining those who identify themselves as COs have been virtually nonexistent. The present research sought to investigate possible underlying attitudinal differences between the two groups. Results indicated that relative to veg*ns, COs evaluated animals less favorably, meat more favorably, and were lower in idealism, misanthropy, and ingroup identification. Mediation analysis demonstrated that differences between COs and veg*ns in the perceived acceptability of killing animals for food were mediated by beliefs about animals and meat. The discussion largely speculates on the causal direction of these effects.