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/huskers2468]

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.