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: 93,745

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

The Moral Complexities of Eating Meat.Ben Bramble & Bob Fischer (eds.) - 2015 - New York, US: Oxford University Press.
Five Arguments for Vegetarianism.William O. Stephens - 1994 - Philosophy in the Contemporary World 1 (4):25-39.
The Problem of Justifying Animal-Friendly Animal Husbandry.Konstantin Deininger - 2022 - Transforming Food Systems: Ethics, Innovation and Responsibility.

Analytics

Added to PP
2021-11-16

Downloads
11 (#351,772)

6 months
4 (#1,635,958)

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