Home / L. Attacks on veganism and vegans / Part IND
"I'll eat double to make up for you."
it isn't an argument; it's an emotional reaction. Psychology calls it reactance: when people feel their freedom is threatened, they tend to do the opposite of what's asked. The phrase says nothing about the animals; it says something about the discomfort of whoever says it. And the one who pays the "make-up" isn't the vegan, it's the animal.
Short answer
That isn't an argument; it's a provocation. Psychology calls it reactance: when we feel our freedom is threatened, we tend to do the opposite. But the one who pays the "make-up" isn't me; it's the animals. If the goal is to annoy me, there are ways that don't involve anyone's death. And whenever you want to talk about the animals for real, I'm here.
For children
Sometimes, when someone tells us not to do something, we feel like doing it even more, just to provoke them. But in this case, the one who gets hurt isn't the person who asked, it's the animals. Provoking doesn't change what's right.
"If it weren't to provoke me, what do you think of what happens to the animals?"
Como pode aparecer
"I'll eat double to make up for you."
"I'll eat some bacon in your honor."
"For every vegan, one more steak."
"I ate three burgers just to annoy the vegans."
"Vegans are annoying and think they are better." (which is L1)
The strongest version
"I'll eat some bacon in your honor. For every vegan, one more steak."
Strongest version (steelman):
There's no strong version. The phrase is a provocation, not an argument. It can express:
- Irritationat feeling judged.
- Defenseof one's freedom of choice.
- Humorto ease an uncomfortable conversation.
None of these readings offers a reason to eat animals.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The phrase has no argumentative structure:
What the phrase expresses What it says about the animals Irritation Nothing Defense of freedom Nothing Humor Nothing - b
Where the argument breaks
1. It isn't an argument.
There are no premises or conclusion about the moral question.
2. It's reactance.
Feeling one's freedom threatened produces a tendency to do the opposite of what's suggested.
3. The victim is the animal.
The provocation is aimed at the vegan, but the harm falls on the animals.
4. It reveals discomfort.
Feeling the need to "make up" for it shows the question bothered the person, which is a starting point for conversation.
5. Do-gooder derogation explains part of the reaction.
Those who feel judged tend to react against the group that seems to judge them (L1).
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note Minson and Monin, 2012 Meat eaters disparage vegetarians when they anticipate being judged by them Helps explain the reaction Brehm, theory of psychological reactance (1966) Threats to freedom produce a motivation to restore it, often by doing the opposite Academic Press; the link is to an open-access review by Steindl and colleagues (2015) - d
The strongest counter-reply: it's just a joke
The most serious version says the phrase is only humor, with no real intention to eat more meat, and that taking it seriously shows a lack of humor.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
If it's a joke, it isn't an argument.
And the moral question is still unanswered.
Humor can close the conversation.
Often, that's exactly what it's used for.
The joke has a real target.
The animals.
- f
Back to the moral question
The provocation is a way of not talking. But the question remains: setting aside irritation with vegans, is it fair to make animals suffer and die when we don't need to?
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
Absence of argument
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
Harm to third parties as a response
Reactance
Biases
Psychological reactance
Feeling one's freedom threatened produces the opposite behavior
General literature on reactance
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "if someone asks me not to do something, I may do more of it to provoke them".
If it applied to…EnvironmentalistsTap to see
Polluting more to provoke them would be acceptable
No one seriously defends this
If it applied to…Anti-smoking activistsTap to see
Smoking more to provoke them
Harms oneself
If it applied to…VegansTap to see
Eating more meat to provoke them
Harms the animals
Contradictions
And makes it a response to someone else.
Only vegans.
By feeling the need to make up for it.
What the argument gets right
What is true
The phrase reveals something real: many people feel pressured or judged when the subject is meat, and react with humor or provocation. Animal advocates should understand this reaction and avoid feeding it.
But
But provocation isn't an answer. And when the irritation passes, the question about the animals is still there, waiting.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after
References
Psychology
- Do-gooder derogation. *Social Psychological and Personality Science*, 3(2).
- A Theory of Psychological Reactance.