4 N's

[Gob]

Meat eaters who justify their eating habits feel less guilty and are more tolerant of social inequality say researchers.

An international team of researchers led by Dr Jared Piazza of Lancaster University examined the ways in which people defend eating meat.

They found that the vast majority of omnivores defend consuming animals by rationalising their behaviour using one of four rationalisations, which they call the 4Ns.

He said: “The relationships people have with animals are complicated. While most people enjoy the company of animals and billions of dollars are spent each year on pet care and maintenance, most people continue to eat animals as food. People employ a number of strategies to overcome this apparent contradiction in attitude and behaviour.

“One important and prevalent strategy is to rationalise that meat consumption is Natural, Normal Necessary and Nice. “

This study asked students and adults in the United States why they find it OK to eat meat. The largest category used to justify their choice was that that it is “necessary” followed by the other three categories.

Typical comments used to justify eating meat include these 4Ns:

Natural “Humans are natural carnivores”
Necessary “Meat provides essential nutrients”
Normal “I was raised eating meat”
Nice “It’s delicious”

Dr Piazza said: “Morally motivated vegetarians may serve as a source of implicit moral reproach for many omnivores, eliciting behaviours designed to defend against moral condemnation.”
Men endorsed the 4Ns more than women while people who rejected these justifications showed a greater concern for animal welfare.

People who said meat eating is Natural, Necessary, Normal and Nice also share other characteristics; they attributed fewer mental capacities to cows and were more tolerant of social inequality.

Dr Piazza said: “The 4Ns are a powerful pervasive tool employed by individuals to diffuse the guilt one might otherwise experience when consuming animal products.”

The research Rationalising Meat Consumption. The 4Ns in the journal Appetite is co-authored by Matthew Ruby and Juliana Kulik from the University of Pennsylvania, Steve Loughnan from the University of Edinburgh and Mischel Luong, Hanne Watkins and Mirra Seigerman from Melbourne University.

[Lord Jim]

I'm going to take a wild guess and say Dr. Pizza's probably a vegetarian....

[MajGenl.Meade]

More tolerant of fruits than meat eaters are

[rubato]

"...

Dr Piazza said: “The 4Ns are a powerful pervasive tool employed by individuals to diffuse the guilt one might otherwise experience when consuming animal products.”
... "

Why would anyone experience guilt? And why would anyone think justification was required? Silly ideas.


On the evidence, being a vegetarian is the healthiest diet although those who eat fish have the lowest rates of cancer. (based on recent reading) But surely it is a matter of the quantities consumed and not a matter of quasi-religious exclusion.


yrs,
rubato

[wesw]

there are so many things wrong with what you just said. one step from justifying genocide or sectarian slaughter. respect for life and

gratitude for this earth we live upon are not worthless.

[Guinevere]

No, I don't need to justify my choice to eat meat, but I should be respectful of the animal I'm choosing to consume and care about how that animal is raised and slaughtered.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Some posts read like the "Sound Off" letters printed in the local rag.

"What about the school tax? No one does what they like. And the roads. It's about time. Those large TV dishes and the local code. Council doesn't even try!"

[Lord Jim]

It's far more likely that a vegetarian is going to assume that meat eaters feel a need to "justify" "rationalize" or "defend" their consumption of meat than it is that an actual meat eater will feel that way...

I'm sure Dr. Pizza believes meat eaters should feel that way...

[Sue U]

No, I don't need to justify my choice to eat meat, but I should be respectful of the animal I'm choosing to consume and care about how that animal is raised and slaughtered.

What Guin said.

[Gob]

Why would anyone experience guilt? And why would anyone think justification was required? Silly ideas.



yrs,
rubato

Oh well, who are we to believe, our resident expert in nothing, or

Lancaster University

Jared Piazza, Matthew B. Ruby, Steve Loughnan, Mischel Luong, Juliana Kulik, Hanne M. Watkins, Mirra Seigerman.

Rationalizing meat consumption.

The 4Ns. Appetite, 2015; 91: 114

DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.

2015.04.011

[Crackpot]

I'd go with our resident expert in nothing on this one.

[Lord Jim]

Sad to say, so would I....

[MajGenl.Meade]

Me too. So what that four or five vegetable munching left wing (sorry, left leaf) university dweebs think that meat eaters like me do or should feel guilty chowing down on a tasty animal? Who cares what their opinion is of my opinion, since they didn't ask? Since we do eat tasty animals, what the ladies wrote about ethically raising 'em, killing 'em and cooking 'em seems right to me.

I am not guilty and plead no contest on the veal parmesan.

[Guinevere]

I draw the line at veal. Haven't eaten it in decades.

[Gob]

Me too. So what that four or five vegetable munching left wing (sorry, left leaf) university dweebs think that meat eaters like me do or should feel guilty chowing down on a tasty animal?

Nobody thinks you "should feel guilty"

He said: “The relationships people have with animals are complicated. While most people enjoy the company of animals and billions of dollars are spent each year on pet care and maintenance, most people continue to eat animals as food. People employ a number of strategies to overcome this apparent contradiction in attitude and behaviour.
“One important and prevalent strategy is to rationalise that meat consumption is Natural, Normal Necessary and Nice.

[wesw]

not guilty guys, respectful and grateful. without these plants and animals we cannot be. our bodies are designed to exist in the natural world we must respect and cherish it if we are to have a future here. man has the power to destroy the very things that give us life. we should be good caretakers of the vineyard.....


....until the comet hits anyway.

[Lord Jim]

The relationships people have with animals are complicated. While most people enjoy the company of animals and billions of dollars are spent each year on pet care and maintenance, most people continue to eat animals as food. People employ a number of strategies to overcome this apparent contradiction in attitude and behaviour.

Seems to me that the relationship that people have with plants is similarly "complicated"...

Will Dr. Pizza and his colleagues next address the "apparent contradiction" between the fact that while most people enjoy the presence of plants, and billions of dollars are spent each year on plant care and maintenance, most people continue to eat plants as food....

I'd be curious to know what "strategies" the good doctor and his cohorts could uncover to explain this apparent contradiction between attitude and behavior...

[wesw]

yep, there has been some interesting study about plant communication thru root systems and such, suggesting intra specie and even inter specie awareness and consciousness....

[rubato]

Why would anyone experience guilt? And why would anyone think justification was required? Silly ideas.



yrs,
rubato

Oh well, who are we to believe, our resident expert in nothing, or

The two posters following who agreed with me? Guin and Sue U agreed exactly.

You complete ignorant jackass.

yrs,
rubato

[Gob]

Yes, well they are wrong too! See, easy....