Home / E. Relativism, freedom and evasions / Part DIR
"I don't want to see those videos."
refusing information so as not to feel the obligation is willful ignorance. If someone can't bear to see what happens to the animals they eat, the problem isn't the video but what it shows. Research shows that some consumers deliberately avoid information about meat production precisely so they won't have to change.
Short answer
No one is obliged to watch violent videos, and timing matters. But if what they show is unbearable to watch, it may be unbearable to pay for. The problem isn't the video; it's what it shows. Research in the Netherlands found that about a quarter of consumers admit avoiding information about meat production. It's a way of not feeling the obligation to change.
For children
Sometimes we don't want to look at something because it's sad. That's normal. But if we don't want to look because we know something wrong is happening, closing our eyes doesn't make it stop. It's like covering your ears when someone is asking for help.
"If you can't watch how it's done, do you feel fine paying for it to be done?"
Como pode aparecer
"Don't show me that at lunch."
"I'd rather not know."
"That's emotional terrorism."
"Vegans love posting slaughter videos to shock people."
"Do you want to ruin my meal?"
"Those videos are exceptions or staged." (which is B9)
The strongest version
"Don't show me that at lunch. I'd rather not know. That's emotional terrorism."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1Violent images cause suffering to those who see them.
- P2No one is obliged to expose themselves to images that make them suffer.
- P3Using shocking images is emotional manipulation, not argument.
- CSo refusing to watch the videos is legitimate and says nothing about the moral question.
P1 and P2 are largely true: no one should be forced to watch violent scenes, and timing matters. P3 is partly true, but ignores that the images show facts. The problem lies in the conclusion: refusing to look doesn't change what happens, and those who pay for what happens have special reasons to know.
The argument is valid as a defense of the right not to be exposed to images. It fails when used to avoid knowing what one is funding.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument can mean two things:
Version What it means Legitimate? "Not now" I don't want to see that during lunch Yes, timing matters "Never" I'd rather not know how my food is produced No: it's avoiding information relevant to one's own choice - b
Where the argument breaks
1. It's willful ignorance.
Avoiding information so as not to feel obliged to act is a well-known strategy. It doesn't change the facts, only how they're perceived.
2. The discomfort is a signal.
If seeing how it's done causes suffering, that indicates something morally relevant in what's seen. We don't feel this watching a bean harvest.
3. The images show facts.
4. Research documents the strategy.
A 2016 Dutch study identified a group of "strategically ignorant" consumers: about 27% admitted ignoring information about meat production. Psychology also shows that being reminded of the link between meat and suffering leads people to attribute less mind to animals.
5. Those who pay have special reasons to know.
No one has to watch everything that happens in the world. But when one directly funds something, knowing how it's done is part of a responsible choice.
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note Onwezen and van der Weele, 2016, summarized by Faunalytics About 27% of Dutch consumers admit ignoring information about meat production A group described as "strategically ignorant" Bastian et al., 2012 Being reminded of the link between meat and suffering leads people to deny animals minds Shows the strategy of reducing discomfort - d
The strongest counter-reply: seeing isn't necessary for knowing
The most serious version says the person already knows, broadly, that animals die to become food, and doesn't need to see the images to have that information. Refusing the images isn't refusing knowledge.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
Knowing broadly isn't knowing what it's like.
Many people are surprised by common practices, like culling chicks or gestation stalls.
If they already know, the question remains.
The moral question doesn't depend on seeing; it depends on what one does with what one knows.
The refusal usually comes with avoiding any conversation.
The test is whether the person will at least read or talk about the subject.
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
Attacking the messenger
Epistemological
Does the evidence support it?
Willful ignorance
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
Evading responsibility
Biases
Willful ignorance
Avoiding information that would create an obligation
Meat paradox
Avoiding the image keeps affection and the plate apart
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "if I'd rather not know, I bear no responsibility".
If it applied to…Clothes made with slave laborTap to see
Those who don't want to know would bear no responsibility
No one accepts this
If it applied to…A neighbor mistreating their dogTap to see
It would be enough not to look
No one accepts this
If it applied to…Companies with illegal practicesTap to see
Managers could avoid reports to escape responsibility
The law calls this willful blindness
Contradictions
Documentaries, war news, violent films.
Which shows the problem is the content.
Especially when slave labor is suspected.
What the argument gets right
What is true
No one should be forced to watch violent images, and there are inappropriate times and ways to show them. Activists who use images carelessly can push people away, and the viewer's discomfort is real.
But
But discomfort is a signal, not an argument. If looking at something is unbearable, the question left is whether it makes sense to keep paying for it.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after
References
Psychology
- Faunalytics. Meat eating and strategic ignorance (summary of Onwezen, M. C., & van der Weele, C. N., 2016, *Food Quality and Preference*, 52).
- Don't mind meat? The denial of mind to animals used for human consumption. *Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin*, 38(2).
- The role of meat consumption in the denial of moral status and mind to meat animals. *Appetite*, 55(1).