Home / D. Tradition, culture and religion / Part DIR
"Everybody eats meat."
a practice being popular doesn't prove it's right. Slavery was accepted by the majority for centuries; women's suffrage was once defended by a minority. Every moral change began as a minority position. That almost everyone eats meat explains why it seems normal, not why it would be just.
Short answer
Lots of people doing something doesn't prove it's right. Slavery was once accepted by the majority, and the first people who fought for women's suffrage were a minority. Every moral change started with a few. That almost everyone eats meat explains why it seems normal, not why it would be just. Besides, the majority benefits from the practice, and the animals, who pay for it, don't get a vote.
For children
Has it ever happened that the whole class laughed at someone and you thought it was wrong? Lots of people doing something doesn't mean it's right. Sometimes the first to notice that something hurts is just one person. And with time, the others can notice too.
"Can you think of a practice the majority accepted that we now think is wrong?"
Como pode aparecer
"Everybody eats meat."
"You're a minority."
"If it were wrong, nobody would do it."
"8 billion people are wrong and you're right?"
"Do you think you're better than everyone?"
"Shared moral intuitions count as evidence."
"We've always done it." (which is D1)
The strongest version
"Almost everyone eats meat. You're a minority. If it were wrong, nobody would do it."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1The vast majority of people, in almost every culture, eat animals.
- P2Practices accepted by almost everyone tend to reflect shared moral intuitions.
- P3Shared moral intuitions are good evidence of what is right.
- CSo eating animals is probably not wrong.
The strong version has something reasonable about it: consensus sometimes points to accumulated wisdom. The problem lies in P3, which history often refutes, especially when the majority benefits from the practice.
The argument is valid. Its soundness fails at P3: consensus doesn't guarantee correctness, and it's especially unreliable when it favors those who take part in it.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument confuses three things:
Claim Type Many people eat meat Statistical fact So it seems normal Psychological fact So it's right A moral conclusion that doesn't follow - b
Where the argument breaks
1. It's the appeal to popularity.
An idea's popularity isn't evidence that it's true or just. It's one of the best-known fallacies.
2. History refutes the consensus.
Slavery, the exclusion of women from politics and many forms of discrimination were accepted by the majority for centuries. Change came from minorities who questioned the consensus.
3. Consensus is suspect when it favors those who take part in it.
Those who eat meat have an interest in eating meat being acceptable. The animals, who pay the price, don't take part in the consensus.
4. "Normal" is one of the most used justifications.
Research on how people justify eating meat shows "it's normal" among the four most common reasons, alongside "natural", "necessary" and "nice".
5. Social conformity is powerful.
Classic psychology experiments show people tend to follow the group even when the group is clearly wrong.
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note Piazza et al., 2015 "Normal" is one of the four justifications most used for eating meat The 4Ns: natural, normal, necessary and nice Asch, *Studies of independence and conformity* (1956) People tend to follow the group even in the face of clearly wrong answers Psychological Monographs; the experiments began in 1951 - d
The strongest counter-reply: consensus carries some weight
The most serious version doesn't say consensus proves anything, but that it should count as some evidence, and that whoever goes against the majority needs strong arguments.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
It shifts the burden, but not the answer.
The strong arguments exist, and the rest of this guide presents them.
The weight of consensus shrinks when there's self-interest.
A consensus formed by those who benefit is worth less as evidence.
The scientific consensus points elsewhere.
Scientists recognize animal sentience, and nutrition bodies recognize that well-planned vegan diets are adequate.
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
Appeal to popularity
Epistemological
Does the evidence support it?
Self-interested consensus
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
Normality as justification
Biases
Social conformity
Following the group feels safe and correct
Classic social psychology literature
Pluralistic ignorance
Many are uncomfortable in silence and think they're the only ones
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "what the majority does is right".
If it applied to…Slavery in the eighteenth centuryTap to see
It would have been right, because the majority accepted it
No one accepts this
If it applied to…Excluding women from votingTap to see
It would have been right as long as the majority supported it
No one accepts this
If it applied to…Any majority prejudiceTap to see
It would be just
The principle legitimizes any popular oppression
Contradictions
Almost everyone holds minority opinions on some issue.
Abolitionists and suffragists were a minority.
If the criterion is the majority, yes, which shows it isn't a moral criterion.
What the argument gets right
What is true
It's true that eating meat is nearly universal, and that this makes veganism seem strange to many people. Social consensus also has some practical importance: changing habits is easier when the group changes together.
But
But how common a practice is explains why it seems normal, not why it would be just. Moral history is full of majorities that were wrong and minorities who saw it first.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after
References
Psychology
- Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns. *Appetite*, 91.
- Status quo bias in decision making. *Journal of Risk and Uncertainty*, 1(1).
- Studies of independence and conformity. Psychological Monographs, 70(9).
- Pluralistic ignorance and alcohol use on campus. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology*, 64(2).