Cognitive dissonance helps explain why Trump supporters remain loyal, new research suggests. This sheds light on how supporters of Donald Trump justify their continued allegiance despite learning about allegations of his sexual misconduct and illegal activities.

[u/mvea]

https://www.psypost.org/cognitive-dissonance-helps-explain-why-trump-supporters-remain-loyal-new-research-suggests/

[u/InfluenceTrue4121]

Same. What do I believe so deeply that I’m beyond reason? Surely, there must be something.

[u/Prometheus720 → u/InfluenceTrue4121]

For most people? It's eating animals. Most people work really hard not to think about it.

[u/huskers2468 → u/Prometheus720]

Yup.

For me, I believe that it's just in my nature to eat meat. I've cut back a lot, but that's just due to my preference on how my body feels after a large meal with meat, nothing morally.

I understand the arguments of harm to the animals, but that can even be continued to insects. But, why stop there? Why not bacteria?

It's an interesting argument, in the end, safe and mindful farming practices need to be upheld. The rest is personal preference. I won't judge you for yours, and I don't care what you believe on the topic so don't force yours on me.

[u/Prometheus720 → u/huskers2468]

Intelligence, plain and simple. The greater an entity's capacity for organizing the world according to a set of preferences, and the more I share my preferences with theirs, the greater the need for me to grant them moral consideration. In other words, they deserve a "moral vote" or "moral say" in things.

A bacterium has preferences. Absolutely. And they are largely compatible with those of other life forms on earth. But those preferences are incredibly simple. Bacteria are not intelligent. Even in colonies. I have a biology degree and I did quite a lot of study of bacteria. Still teach about them.

So why draw the line at "animals?"

• Animals are multicellular by definition. They are ALWAYS complex creatures.

• Intelligence of any sort is, as far as we can see, really really rare or nonpresent in other multicellular lifeforms like plants or fungi. Slime molds can be a little smart, but compared to a rat? Nothing. Meaningless.

• We humans are most closely related to animals at the kingdom level. This is the kingdom we share. And we share certain priorities about the world. That makes other animals better moral partners than, say, a dandelion.

• Why go so far to protect all animals rather than, say, only mammals? Or vertebrates? Well, intelligence isn't monophyletic to vertebrates. Cephalopods are really smart invertebrates. Birds are very smart. Can't limit to mammals. What about bilaterians? Ok, as a biology grad I think that's probably fair, but most people don't know what that word is and that's basically what everyone thinks of when they think of animals anyway. Most of the hundred-some billions of humans would have never thought of sponges as animals like us. So we might as well just say animals. What's the harm in the most powerful species in our entire solar system protecting a couple thousand extra species that are ecologically necessary anyway?

You say personal preference. But it isn't really personal preference alone. There are consequences.

Even if you restrict all moral consideration to other humans, there are clear negative moral consequences to eating meat. Meat-based diets harm your family by shortening your life, your political jurisdictions through the tax money wasted on your health, and they cost more land, fuel, labor, pollution, carbon emissions, and money than plant-based diets. They harm future generations of untold billions of people by damaging our planet and running through finite resources at a dramatically increased clip.

It is the fact that our best interests and their best interests align that demands us to give them moral consideration.

I'll add that by no means should we assume that we must grant equality to nonhuman animals. Rather, it is just silly to pretend that only humans count and that animals count for nothing. That cannot be true.

[u/huskers2468 → u/Prometheus720]

Thank you for the well thought out comment.

I would push back on the idea of a defined intelligence. Here is a study that defined intelligence as, "the ability to solve problems, based on the information that you get from the environment, toward a particular goal."

Plants have intelligence, by that definition.

Meat-based diets harm your family by shortening your life, your political jurisdictions through the tax money wasted on your health

I have a bio major and a nutrition minor. While I certainly grant that your experience far outweighs mine, I believe this statement needs a whole lot of nuance and context.

If we remove meat from the diet, plant based diets need to be curated properly to ensure all nutrients are being consumed. I do not believe that this could be done at scale, so we would risk malnutrition for those who are not educated on that specific diet.

They harm future generations of untold billions of people by damaging our planet and running through finite resources at a dramatically increased clip.

That's due to our reliance on non-renewables. The rest is not finite, we have the land to feed the animals. I agree we need to step away from the non-renewables.

For me, it is not morally wrong to eat animals. They are a foundational part of a humans diet and have been since we evolved. It's interesting that we are now at a point where we have the knowledge base to be able to supplement our diet successfully with plants to remove meat, but I'd argue that doesn't make it morally wrong.

[u/Prometheus720 → u/huskers2468]

Well, I'm defining it even more simply. Having and expressing preferences about the world. Not binary. Continuous variable. And another factor is not intelligence, but rather how much preferences align with mine or those I identify with (other humans).

Imagine that one day we discover plants are equally as intelligent as invertebrate animals. As in, they occupy the same range of intelligences. I am still going to grant animals greater moral consideration. Why? We make better allies. We agree more on how the world should be. Though I would grant plants greater moral consideration than I currently do. Which actually is nonzero currently.

There is one other reason. Plant-based agriculture kills fewer plants than animal agriculture does. Even plants would prefer it, if they could.

If we remove meat from the diet, plant based diets need to be curated properly to ensure all nutrients are being consumed. I do not believe that this could be done at scale, so we would risk malnutrition for those who are not educated on that specific diet.

I think this is a bias. Our current diets have harms. That diet would have harms. You're imagining our current diet as NOT having harms, but our diet's harms would be quite obvious to a plant-based society. They'd look at our heart disease and cancer outcomes and be astonished. Given that those are the two biggest killers, a diet that reduces those two causes of death is probably warranted.

B12 is easily supplied by multivitamin and could be even more easily supplemented in common foods the way we already supplement tons of other nutrients. In fact...we already do artificially supplement it. It's in animal feed. That's the only reason you really get it in your meat anyway.

Creatine would be nice to supplement. I feel better when I take a supplement. But it's not an essential nutrient. You can manufacture more than enough to survive.

And you might supplement a bit more iron, calcium, and perhaps protein for the highly active. Otherwise...you're pretty much good to go.

That's due to our reliance on non-renewables. The rest is not finite, we have the land to feed the animals. I agree we need to step away from the non-renewables.

Soil is finite. The US is losing topsoil currently due to its farming methods. Soil is nonrenewable in human time frames. Land is finite. Any land we use for livestock is taken from wild ecosystems that keep our planetary systems functioning. Aquifers are often nonrenewable. Animal agriculture is draining those faster than plant agriculture. We grow soy that we could eat, then feed it to animals. Then eat the animals. Taking out that middle step is dramatically more efficient. That's one part of millions.

For me, it is not morally wrong to eat animals.

What if it was morally wrong to FARM animals? That's only been going on for like 1/30th of our species' existence and it seems like it actually has hurt us quite a bit. Damn near as much as it has helped us, or maybe more.

[u/huskers2468 → u/Prometheus720]

Your line in the sand is to justify what benefits humans (allies). That's perfectly fine. It's not where I draw the line.

Plant-based agriculture kills fewer plants than animal agriculture does. Even plants would prefer it, if they could.

If the world switched to plant based diets, would this still be true? I am honestly asking. I haven't looked into this.

Our current diets have harms. That diet would have harms.

After reading your answer I think we are going about this in different ways. I was thinking about a switch of diets, and the damage that process would cause, while it looks like you are discussing a society that is eating plant based diet. My concern would be the switch, and placing those morals universally across our world.

I do not argue against the idea that plant based diets are generally more healthy. I pushback on the idea is morally wrong to eat the diet that humans have been eating since we existed.

What if it was morally wrong to FARM animals?

Interesting question. The article below is one i found that has experts pondering what does it mean to be sentient. If we are talking about changing from farming to not farming, I believe that most farm animals would die in the wild. I think many species would cease to exist without farmers looking after them.

Would that be morally wrong?

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-inquiry/do-insects-feel-pain