Five Shapes of Cognitive Dissonance – Using Objective Hermeneutics to Understand the Meat Paradox

Food Ethics 7 (1):1-14 (2021)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Objective Hermeneutics is a qualitative method that focuses on few sequences of texts, which helps understand single cases. It is used to explore how consumers cope with the contradiction between their enjoyment for meat and their empathy for animals without using frameworks drafted by social scientists. Five cases are analysed, which range from strong references towards the societal norm of meat eating to a feeling of uncertainty in the face of the animals’ death. None of the cases, however, sees the necessity to find a rationale for their own meat consumption. The study concludes by raising the question about the persistence of a societal consensus for meat consumption.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,252

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Hermeneutyka i nauki kognitywne.Shaun Gallagher - 2011 - Avant: Trends in Interdisciplinary Studies 2 (2):197-212.
Cognitive hermeneutics: The better alternative.Peter Tepe - 2011 - Discourse Studies 13 (5):601-608.
Peter A. French, War and Moral Dissonance. [REVIEW]Saba Bazargan - 2013 - Journal of Moral Philosophy 10 (1):116-119.
Why Do We Believe Humans Matter More than Other Animals?Scott Hill & Michael Bertrand - 2020 - Journal of Applied Animal Ethics Research:1 - 8.

Analytics

Added to PP
2021-11-16

Downloads
11 (#1,081,857)

6 months
5 (#565,734)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The Faintest Passion.Harry Frankfurt - 1992 - Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 66 (3):5-16.
Just Food: Philosophy, Justice and Food.Jill Marie Dieterle (ed.) - 2015 - Rowman & Littlefield International.
The Ethics of the Meat Paradox.Lars Ursin - 2016 - Environmental Ethics 38 (2):131-144.

Add more references