Indifference about the fate of animals

Consumer indifference

Indifference is the dark side of the coin engraved with tolerance. Tolerance in turn is the little sister of freedom. Combined with greed, indifference can have nasty consequences, such as factory farming. That greed can be curbed by making unwanted business practices financially unattractive: withdrawing subsidies and applying the principle "the polluter pays".

How is it possible that almost everyone is against animal suffering, yet so few people change their behaviour? Many people think cages and overcrowded sheds are wrong, but still buy the cheapest meat. In scientific terms: how does the gap between attitude and behaviour arise?

When do people (not) change their behaviour?

Behavioural change starts with the realisation that something is wrong with current behaviour. With animals, this is about knowing what goes on, but also about ethics or spirituality. If ethics is not rooted in compassion, little comes of just action. An animal must at least have a certain status, so that people see limits to what may be done to it. We believe, by the way, that animals have rights regardless of their status or value.

Then everyone weighs the pros and cons: price, taste, convenience, health and whether good alternatives are available. Another question is who is responsible: me, the farmer, the supermarket or the government? And does my choice make a difference? Is my drop not just a drop in the ocean?

Side track: the model of Fishbein and Ajzen

Psychologists Fishbein and Ajzen see a rational weighing of pros and cons as the main driver of behaviour. In addition, the social pressure of important others counts: family, friends, fellow consumers, interest groups and the government. The more you value their opinion, the greater their influence. Ajzen later added a third factor: how much control you believe you have over your own behaviour. What is rational for one person may be irrational for another.

Social pressure and lifestyle

Social pressure comes from parents, education, the media, advertising and role models. Meat has long stood for strength and prosperity. Whoever does not eat meat stands out and implicitly criticises the lifestyle of others. That does not make you popular. A lifestyle in which you take others into account is also hardly visible. And the victims of factory farming are not always attractive to stand up for.

A hectic life does not help either. People who are busy do not take the time to reconsider their diet. They acknowledge the drawbacks but do nothing about them. Competition is seen as a virtue, restraint as selling yourself short. Altruistic behaviour quickly becomes suspect.

The meat paradox

Most people love animals and still eat them. Psychologists call this the meat paradox. The contradiction feels uncomfortable. People usually resolve the discomfort not by changing their behaviour, but by thinking differently about animals. Research shows that people attribute less mind and feeling to animals they eat, especially just before they are about to eat meat. A cow then seems "dumber" than a dog.

People also justify eating meat with four standard justifications, the 4 Ns: eating meat is natural, normal, necessary and nice. Once you recognise the 4 Ns, you see them everywhere in conversations about meat. Read more about the fallacies of meat eaters.

Side track: mechanisms that keep bad habits alive

As early as 2002, Dutch philosopher Tatjana Visak described how we make it easy for ourselves to hold on to a bad habit:

The victim is declared inferior. This happens in wars and it also justifies the domination of animals.
The act is split into small parts. The meat eater does not kill the animal and does not seem responsible for it.
The suffering is far away. We do not have to look the victim in the eye.
A "steak" or a "nugget" no longer looks like a cow or a chicken. The connection easily disappears from our awareness.
Without a bond with the animal, it is harder to say "no" to the meat on offer.
We learn not to hurt others, but not yet to apply that principle to people and animals far away.

What does help?

Arguments alone change little. Behaviour changes mainly when the environment cooperates. Research points to a few things that work:

Make it easy. The more vegetarian dishes on the menu, the more often people choose them. In cafeterias at the University of Cambridge, sales of vegetarian meals rose by 40 to 80 percent when the choice was doubled. A vegetarian dish as the default option works even better.
Show that things are changing. The message "more and more people are eating less meat" works better than "most people still eat meat". People like to move in the direction others are going.
Make it tasty. Whoever can cook well without meat keeps it up longer. Good recipes do more than arguments.
Eat together. A pleasant vegetarian meal with friends changes more than a sermon.
Let the price tell the truth. If meat included its true costs for animals, environment and health, it would be much more expensive. Now we pay in instalments: through taxes and later in the shop. "The polluter pays" makes the choice fairer.
Give small steps a chance. Whoever starts with a few days a week without meat discovers that it is not so hard. That makes the next step smaller.

Side track: addiction and unfreedom

The indifference of the consumer of factory-farmed products resembles that of an addict towards the feelings of his victims. Addiction is a form of unfreedom that can threaten the freedom of others. Modern people work hard, have no time for alternatives and want easy, cheap and fast food. In doing so they give factory farming too much room, because they do not look critically at the products and do not set limits.

The animal too is pushed to grow as fast as possible. Growth hormones have been banned in the European Union since 1988. Yet substances that promote growth are still used, such as feed additives. Banned substances are also found from time to time during inspections. Outside the EU, for example in the United States, growth hormones for cattle and growth promoters for pigs are simply permitted. Residues of such substances can end up in our food.

So much for individual considerations. There are also factors at the macro level that slow down improvements in animal welfare. For more on how people and society develop in (un)healthy ways, read Erich Fromm or our view on inner freedom. Theologian Eugen Drewermann describes how fear leads people to aggression, also towards animals.

Confucius (551-479 BC): "I saw them live and cannot bear to see them die; I heard their cries and refuse to eat their flesh."

Sources: Loughnan, Haslam and Bastian, The role of meat consumption in the denial of moral status and mind to meat animals (Appetite, 2010); Piazza et al., Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns (Appetite, 2015); Sparkman and Walton, Dynamic norms promote sustainable behavior (Psychological Science, 2017); Garnett et al., Impact of increasing vegetarian availability on meal selection and sales in cafeterias (PNAS, 2019). Updated October 2026.