Discover more from Overcoming Bias
[We] surveyed several hundred philosophers and non-philosophers on their opinions about various moral issues; we also asked survey respondents to describe their own behavior on those same issues. … The biggest divergences in moral opinion concerned our question about “regularly eating the meat of mammals such as beef and pork”. 60% of ethics professor respondents rated mammal-meat consumption as morally bad, compared to 45% of non-ethicist philosophers and just 19% of non-philosophers. Opinion also divided by gender and age. … Fully 81% of female philosophers born in 1960 or later said it was morally bad to regularly eat the meat of mammals. To put this degree of consensus in perspective, … only 82% of philosophers endorsed non-skeptical realism about the existence of an external world. …
38% of [young female philosophers] reported having eaten the meat of a mammal at their previous evening meal — a rate not statistically different from the 39% reported rate among respondents overall. … Similarly, despite the difference in normative view, there was no statistically detectable difference in the mean age of respondents who said they had eaten the meat of a mammal at their previous evening’s meal. … 78% of those who reported that they never eat mammal meat said eating mammal meat is bad, compared to 32% of those who reported sometimes eating meat. However, it seems that among non-vegetarians there is little if any relationship between normative ethical view and actual meat consumption. (more; HT Stefano Bertolo)
So why, among all the moral issues on which one could be hypocritical, and people which could be hypocritical, is the observed worst case young female philosophers on eating meat?
Meat Philosophy
On a side note, what is 'non-skeptical realism ', alternatively what is skeptical realism?
Natural law favors meat consumption. The human mouth and digestive tract is built for omnivorous eating. Humans are natural hunters and naturally like meat. When economies grow,the cost of food rises partly due to increased meat consumption. No one supports animal cruelty,so let's address this. Non- factory farming does not preclude cruelty. Lack of modern agricultural practice can be cruel. I once visited an Amish Farm,where the animals looked like they were starving.There was obvious over grazing and I am sure many other instances of cruelty and neglect have occurred in the non factory setting. In many poor countries animals provide the only source of good protein. This does not put meat eaters in the same category as child molesters.
Vegans are the product of over affluence, sentimentality and a lack of contact with the land or the world. Farmers and ranchers go out at all hours of the night to care for animals in a flood or storm and buy food for them when needed,These animals essentially lives lives of ease compared to wild animals.
Proper animal breeding can reduce suffering. For instance in a chicken yard the hens compete murderously. The best egg producer pecks the other hens mercilessly in order to get more food. Look on any chicken breeders site and you will see how docile happy chickens are selectively bred so this doesn't happen. You could also breed for chickens that looked forward to being fried. The Japanese and Islamists can already find people ready to commit suicide. Why not chickens and cows?