Eating meat and being against animal cruelty is no paradox. At most it is a dilemma - "want to eat meat, don't want to hurt animals".<p>The fact that many (most) people continue to eat meat means that people resolve the dilemma - they not be aware of the issue, consider it less significant, consider eating meat more important, etc.<p>The distance from the details of animal husbandry probably helps a lot. If I had to personally kill and clean all my meat, I'd either stop eating it or I'd get a lot more comfortable with the process. Then again, I have relatives who raise farm animals and others who hunt - distance from the process is not required.
Plain and simple, people have the ability to ignore things that are unethical if they consider the benefits sufficiently important. If you are reading this, you are using a device that is the result of thousands of hours of actual chattel slave labor, conflict-producing minerals, assembled by workers in horrific conditions. And yet you use that iphone or thinkpad.<p>Any person living in the first world is the beneficiary of an immense amount of human suffering and cruelty, period. There is no way to avoid it short of living a hermetic life in the woods. So why don't you do that? Because society is convenient and nice to live in.<p>People eat meat because it's delicious. People buy factory-farmed meat because it's cheap and they can use the money they save on something else. People use smartphones and PCs because they're entertaining. It really doesn't seem like a deep question to me at all.<p>As for why people who live on farms, specifically, would be more likely to eat meat... I suppose people probably become desensitized to it, the same as someone who works in Foxconn would become desensitized to what we would perceive as human suffering.<p>I dunno, it doesn't really seem that complex an issue to me. Pete Singer is right, the ethical answer is to reduce our suffering footprint as much as we possibly can. But hedonism is so damned pleasurable, that people won't. If you can moderately reduce your suffering footprint in a sustainable fashion, like a diet, by something like veganism then go for it, but you also can't reduce it to zero.
The thing where we have different words for animals and their meats is an artifact of how England got invaded a lot in the middle ages and the invaders brought their languages with them. For example, "veal" is a Norman word, while "lamb" is Germanic.<p>You can certainly argue that we use them as a euphemism today, but that's not actually how they originated at all.
The “meat paradox” only happens because people living in cities are disconnected from how their food is grown.<p>People that lived on a farm, even for small periods of time when they were little, have no such issues.
Hot take, of course, but I think pro-choice ethical vegans and (very) pro-life meat eaters have a more interesting paradox.<p>What interesting thing about a honey bee or fish deserves protection that isn't true of a fairly young human fetus? And, likewise, what's true of a young fetus that does not apply to a pig or octopus on the pro-life side?<p>There are clearly religious answers to some of the paradox on all sides of things, but I'm sure not all of us find them convincing.<p>EDIT: There is probably a more acute detachment/skin-in-the-game distinction to be made in this case, if we can suspend our politics for a moment, which might be asking a lot these days, perhaps.
For me, killing animals for meat isn't a problem. It's the way that they're treated before they're killed that bugs me about factory farms.<p>I shot a deer about 6 weeks back and butchered it myself, and I don't feel any moral conflicts over it. Over those last 6 weeks, though, I've actually eaten far less meat. I haven't bought meat from the supermarket at all, and I've eaten it at restaurants just a handful of times. Most days I eat vegetables, lentils, eggs, beans, etc., and once or twice a week I put on the chef hat and make a fancy venison dish. In comparison, factory farmed meat just isn't all that interesting or appetizing to me anymore.
On a side note, I recently tried the "Impossible Burger" and was duly impressed with how delicious it was for a plant-based patty. I could tell it wasn't exactly beef, but if you had told me it was from some other bovine relative, I would have believed you.
On the flipside.<p>Let's say you eat 300g of beef a day, every day.
Let's say a full grown cow will give you 300kg of beef.
In order to fuel this habit of pretty intense meat consumption, you have to kill a cow once every three years.<p>I think for many people, this in itself doesn't strike them as that immoral, especially if the cow lives a pretty chill life.<p>The harder one is that if you want to do the same with chickens, you've got to pop one once every 3 or 4 <i>days</i>. Given the fact they often live horrible lives, this seems beyond what most people can morally justify.
People have two layers. Behavioural psychology tends to pretend that the deeper layer; the one that comes out when you're depressed and shatters all your illusions; doesn't exist. People know. They just block it out and invent reasons. Rationalisation is a powerful tool. We couldn't survive without it.
I am against animal cruelty, except I don't consider killing animals for meat to be cruelty, it's just an animal fulfilling their life purpose. That's how virtually all wild animals die, by becoming a meal for some predator, so killing them by humans is no different.<p>Then again, if someone would do some unnecessary torture on said animal, starving it, beating it up, then of course I would consider that cruelty and demanded punishment for that.
We see all kinds of moral decision making paradoxes: when men act against homosexuality and then later come out as always having been gay, when religious leaders abuse people sexually...<p>I think morality is just fluid for most people, when we want to do something badly we will take on frameworks of atonement or utilitarianism ("I'll do this thing, but it's ok because of this separate thing cancelling it out") and it's often wrapped up in our own greater inner struggles, not some isolated psychological puzzle box that can be studied. Meat-eating is a worldwide culturally-reinforcing personal struggle of having compassion toward suffering of all things that can suffer. I think part of why pro-animal activists get so derided when they criticize people or behaviors, is because we know that they're trying to heal by force when people need to do it themselves.
There is also a possibility that there is no moral paradox. The article uses the idea that factory farms are animal torture as an axiom, it never argues for that case. Animals are killed quickly and painlessly for meat. I've seen animals killed for food, and have done it. Animal torture is abusing and giving animals pain purposefully, and often does not involve eating them. It is clearly different.