Home / E. Relativism, freedom and evasions / Part DIR
"Eating meat isn't an ideology; veganism is."
every practice that involves choices about who may be used rests on beliefs, eating meat included. The difference is that the dominant belief is invisible to those who follow it. The psychologist Melanie Joy called this belief system carnism: it teaches which animals are food and which are companions, and makes this seem natural. Veganism doesn't politicize food; it only makes visible a choice that already existed.
Short answer
Eating meat also depends on beliefs: that certain animals may be used and others may not, that the pig is food and the dog is family. These beliefs seem neutral because they're the majority's, and the dominant norm is invisible to those who follow it. The psychologist Melanie Joy called this system carnism. Veganism doesn't invent an ideology; it only makes visible a choice that was already being made.
For children
Who decided the dog is a friend and the pig is food? Nobody is born knowing that: we learn it from our family and our culture. In other countries, people learn it differently. So eating certain animals also comes from ideas someone taught us, even if they seem normal.
"Who taught you that the pig is food and the dog is family?"
Como pode aparecer
"Eating meat is normal, it's not a philosophy."
"You're the ones politicizing food."
"Carnism is a made-up word."
"I just eat; vegans are the ones with an ideology."
"The burden of justification lies with whoever proposes the change."
"Veganism is a political ideology or a globalist agenda." (which is J7)
The strongest version
"Eating meat is normal, it's not a philosophy. You're the ones politicizing food. Carnism is a made-up word."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1Eating meat is a traditional and almost universal practice that doesn't depend on any theory.
- P2Veganism depends on a specific moral theory about animals.
- P3Whoever proposes changing a practice on the basis of a theory carries the ideological burden.
- CSo eating meat is neutral, and veganism is an ideology.
The strong version has some truth in it: whoever proposes changing a custom has to offer reasons. The problem lies in P1: eating meat does depend on beliefs, such as the belief that certain animals may be used and others may not.
The argument is valid. Its soundness fails at P1, which confuses "dominant" with "neutral".
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument treats the dominant norm as an absence of belief:
Belief behind eating meat Is it neutral? Certain animals may be raised and killed for food No: it's a moral position Which animals count as food varies by culture Shows the choice is learned Eating meat is normal, natural and necessary These are justifications, studied by psychology - b
Where the argument breaks
1. Dominant isn't neutral.
Every practice that decides who may be used involves moral judgments. Most people simply don't notice the judgments they share with almost everyone.
2. The choice of which animals to eat is cultural.
In Europe and the Americas people eat pigs but not dogs; in some places it has been different, and in others cows are not eaten. This shows the division is taught, not natural.
3. The concept of carnism describes this system.
Melanie Joy proposed the term in 2009 to name the belief system that conditions people to eat certain animals. One can disagree with the term, but the idea that eating animals is sustained by beliefs is supported by research on the 4Ns: natural, normal, necessary and nice.
4. "Ideology" isn't an insult.
Every moral position is a set of beliefs about how to act. The relevant question isn't whether something is an ideology, but whether its reasons are good.
5. The burden applies to both sides.
Whoever proposes change has to give reasons, and so does whoever causes harm to others. A practice being old doesn't exempt it from justification (D1).
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note Joy, *Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows* (2009) Proposes the concept of carnism The author's page on the concept Piazza et al., 2015 The most common justifications for eating meat are that it's natural, normal, necessary and nice Shows the belief system at work Bratanova, Loughnan and Bastian, 2011 Classifying an animal as food lowers the moral status attributed to it Shows the weight of learned categories - d
The strongest counter-reply: not every habit is an ideology
The most serious version says not every habit expresses an ideology: brushing your teeth, for example, is just a custom. Calling meat eating an ideology would inflate the word.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
Brushing your teeth has no victim.
Habits that involve other beings require moral justification.
The argument doesn't depend on the word.
One can swap "ideology" for "set of beliefs", and the question remains.
The justifications exist and are studied.
The fact that people reach for them shows there are beliefs sustaining the habit.
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
Persuasive definition
Shifting the burden
Epistemological
Does the evidence support it?
Invisible norm
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
Apparent neutrality
Biases
Functional categorization
"Food" seems like a property of the animal
Naive realism and the bias blind spot
One's own habit seems neutral; the other's, ideological
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "the majority's position isn't an ideology; only the minority's is".
If it applied to…Abolitionism in the 19th centuryTap to see
It would be an ideology; slavery would be neutral
No one accepts this
If it applied to…Women's suffrageTap to see
It would be an ideology; exclusion would be neutral
No one accepts this
If it applied to…Any majority beliefTap to see
It would be immune to questioning
The principle protects any majority
Contradictions
Which shows they follow a rule about which animals to eat.
Natural, normal, necessary: these are beliefs.
Such as eating dogs in other countries.
What the argument gets right
What is true
It's true that whoever proposes changing a custom has to give good reasons, and that accusing everyone of "ideology" can impoverish the debate. It's also true that veganism is a moral position, with assumptions that can be discussed.
But
But the same holds for eating meat. The difference isn't that one side has beliefs and the other doesn't; it's that the majority's beliefs are invisible. Making those beliefs visible is the first step to examining them.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after
References
Psychology
- Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism.
- Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns. *Appetite*, 91.
- The effect of categorization as food on the perceived moral standing of animals. *Appetite*, 57(1).
- Status quo bias in decision making. *Journal of Risk and Uncertainty*, 1(1).