1. What is the basic conclusion of this review? The basic conclusion of this review is the discussion of the meat paradox and of the characteristics of those involved in eating meat. The meat paradox is one of the biggest dilemmas involved in meat eating. It stumps psychologists and eaters around the world. The characteristics of those involved in eating meat are also discussed. The “eater” of meat tends to be masculine and doesn’t think much about the animal they devour. The “eaten” tends to be a less “mindful” animal.
2. What characteristics of the “eater” are related to eating animals? One characteristic of the “eater” is authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is “the belief that it is acceptable to control and aggress against
…show more content…
“If perceived pain sensitivity partially underlies moral concern, reducing animals’ capacity to suffer might facilitate eating them” (Loughnan 2). The lower the pain sensitivity, the lower the perceived animal mind is. “An animal’s perceived mind and its perceived similarity to humans are key factors influencing people’s willingness to eat it” (Loughnan 2). 4. How does masculinity and perceptions of animals relate to eating animals? Masculinity and perceptions of animals relate to eating animals because it is a part of the thought process in eating animals. Masculinity and perception help an individual determine whether eating the dead animal is acceptable or not. Masculinity plays an important role in eating animals. Societal standards say that only “real men” eat meat. “The association is so close that meat has become metaphorically ‘male’, such that meat eaters are perceived as more masculine than vegetarians” (Loughnan 2). The perception of animals also plays an important role in eating animals. Those who perceive an animal as “mindful” wouldn’t even think about eating it. “…an animal’s perceived mind…are key factors influencing people’s willingness to eat it” (Loughnan 2). Omnivores will also alter their perception on an animal’s minds to justify the consumption of