Nonvegans Think Differently Than Vegans
Print This Post
Some vegans watch Earthlings or Meet Your Meat and go vegan overnight, but most vegans went vegan slowly. I’ve long believed that the path most vegans arrive at veganism – the path that begins with reducing or eliminating consumption of mammals and then extends to birds and then to sea creatures and then extends beyond flesh to milk and eggs – is a path that follows a natural or logical progression of empathy extending out from our own kind to those who are similar to us.
That is, it is common for humans to feel some empathy for cats, dogs, dolphins, horses, rabbits and other mammals like cows and pigs. Some people act on that empathy by eating only certain types of animals that they think of as dissimilar to humans (such as chickens or fishes). Some people act on that empathy by eating only animals who have been treated according to certain “humane” standards. Vegetarians extend the empathy and choose not to eat animal flesh. Vegans extend that empathy to reach all sentient species and refrain from intentional and unnecessary harm to them.
But what gets someone who cares about animal suffering to make the leap into veganism?
A recent study on empathy compared omnivores, vegetarians, and vegans. The study looked at the brains of vegans and nonvegans while showing them images of human and animal suffering. Among other findings, they discovered “a distinctive pattern of empathic response and emotional control in vegans.”
“while omnivores are characterized by a greater activation of the bilateral posterior MTG during both human and animal negative valence scenes, vegetarians and vegans have constantly an higher engagement of empathy related areas while observing negative scenes, independently of the species of the individuals involved” [...]
“Collectively, our results reveal that distinct brain responses are evoked by emotionally significant pictures of humans and animals in people with vegetarian and vegan feeding habits, as well as between vegetarians and vegans, suggesting that different motivational factors might underlie their preferences and moral attitudes.”
What can a vegan advocate learn from this? The take-away, as I see it, is that nonvegans think differently than vegans. We don’t just have different beliefs, habits, education, resources, etc. though we may have those, too; we literally process the knowledge of others’ suffering differently. We literally think about animal suffering differently than omnivores.
Hence, if we want to effectively advocate for animals, we can’t rely solely on the reasoning that is most compelling to us. Nonvegans don’t think like us. So we must include discussions that appeal to nonvegans. We must find ways to encourage animal rights that fit into nonvegans’ paradigms.
An example:
Hat tip: vegan.com
Elaine, great post, I have referenced your writing in my most recent blog posting. Thank you for the information and keep up the good work, you are a treasure.
glenn
Personally, I find it disturbing to promote the idea that vegans “think differently” than non-vegans. This one study is certainly not enough to say so conclusively. And besides, how could we be certain that any changes to our brains didn’t happen *because* of our new found empathy, rather than as a precursor to it?
Saying that vegans are “special,” “unique” or just “wired differently” than meat eaters absolves meat eaters of responsibility to change. They say, “hey, going veg is fine for YOU, but I’m wired to eat meat!” Ridiculous. No one *wants* to give up their favorite foods, become socially isolated or ridiculed and bear witness to unfathomable cruelties (as most vegans do)…we choose to tolerate those negatives because we have come to understand that it is unethical to cause animals to suffer unnecessarily for our own trivial pleasures.
And I found the TED clip particularly revolting for the way the speaker celebrated selfish behavior and for the way he presented animal abuse as something we should just “cut back on” rather than eliminate.
Hi! I just wanted to ask… but isn’t that speciesist?
I mean, none of us would advocate “less rape” or “less murder”; we want all those things to stop.
Why is asking people to eat less meat or to go vegetarian (as opposed to vegan) right?
If we want the speciesist paradigm to change (and we do!) we should try to change it, not to perpetuate it!!
How can animal rights, as opposed to welfare, fit in a nonvegan and speciesist paradigm?
Cheers from Italy!
Gabriele
I’m simply going to repeat myself as a response to Jo and Gabriele:
because
Most vegans were once omnivores. In order to convince omnis to go vegan, we need to use methods that appeals to their current thought processes, not to ours. We have to meet them where they are now, not where we hope they’ll be in the future.
I agree with the first part of your response, Elaine, but not the second. I don’t think it’s fair to assume that most vegans arrive at veganism through a process which involves “a natural or logical progression of empathy.” That may be true for some, certainly. But for many others, anything short of veganism is simply a result of a lack of information.
On a personal note, I flirted with vegetarianism for years, but once I read Diet for A New America and learned the truth about animal agriculture – including eggs and dairy – I immediately went vegan. I only wish I had opened my eyes sooner. I know many vegans who express a great deal of regret that they were vegetarian for so many years, mistakenly thinking they were aligning their behaviors with their desire to not harm animals. They were not vegan simply because they lacked knowledge, not empathy.
The article kind of implies there’s a hard-wired difference, and I don’t know if that’s the case. It seems to me that it would be more likely that omnivores are repressing their emotional response of empathy. I think this is more of a learned & even consciously chosen behaviour. It can be unlearned. I know before I became a vegan, I used to repress my empathetic responses a lot more than I do now.
To be clear, the MRI results are not evidence of “hard wiring.” It’s extremely possible that vegans when they were omnivores pregan (pre-vegan) would have shown MRI results similar to the omnivores in this study. There’s NOTHING suggesting that this is “hard wired.”
I mostly reveal by example what its like to be a Vegan now but i also will say “i dont eat anything that sh-ts” or “my body isn’t a graveyard” to really get non vegans to THINK or i ask them to THINK about what Land Creatures are the LARGEST and most PEACEFUL in the world and what do they EAT???
thank you for the MINDFUL article!
correction: not only the largest but the strongest are plant eaters!
Emphathy is often seen as a personality trait whereas like it’s presented in this article it’s more like intelligence, indeed it should be called emotional or empathic intelligence–but I think ‘emotional intelligence’ is already used for people who are good in dealing in social relations (which may include people without empathy). Someone who doesn’t have empathy it’s like someone who doesn’t have logic, there’s something missing in the brain of this individual to understand the world. But our economic system makes it so that traditionally recognized intelligence features like calculation or writing will bring socio-economic comfort to an individual who then can prosper. So we’re observing a phenomenon where psychopaths, who are attracted by power, took the lead of our societies and economic systems.
Robert Hare is an expert in psychopathology. He developped a scale to identify psychopaths, where one important element is the absence of empathy. He published ‘Snakes in Suits’ and the ‘Without Conscience – The Disturbing World of Psychopaths Among Us’.
Just to clarify for those not familiar with MRI research (I am an MRI researcher): As Elaine said, MRI results do not imply hard wiring. And as Sam noted, veganism is certainly a learned behavior, at least in part. It’s possible that the different activation patterns in vegans arise in conjunction with our choice to become vegan, as we learn more information; it’s also possible that those of us who find it easier to choose a vegan lifestyle have some sort of innate proclivity to empathize differently. One of the biggest mistakes non-scientists make when reading about scientific literature is to confuse correlation with causation: veganism and empathetic brain activation patterns go together, but we can’t tell whether one causes the other.
Another common mistake people make is to simply dismiss any scientific information that doesn’t fit perfectly with their ideology; you can question the validity of the study, or the correctness of the interpretation of its results, but it’s ignorant to simply refuse to accept scientific information because it might undermine your world view. It’s a really common defense mechanism in not just vegan philosophy, but also feminist and racial-ethnic philosophy as well. But it makes no more sense than the reasoning of people who refuse to accept the fact that animals can suffer because it threatens their anthropocentrism. Instead, the right thing to do is to update your world view to encompass all of your knowledge (while of course reserving an appropriate amount of skepticism to allow for the fact that science always changes – nothing is ever “proven,” just supported to the best of our current understanding).
All that being said, Elaine’s point is a great one: whatever the cause, we vegans DO have different ways of thinking about compassion and empathy. It’s very possible that, with the right education, nonvegans can also develop the same way of thinking we have. But we must realize that, right now, they simply don’t think about empathy the same way we do, so we can’t rely on that concept as a shared frame of reference upon which to base a discussion. The great news is that there’s a reason to be vegan from pretty much every perspective: compassionate, environmental, health, human rights, economic, political, social justice, feminist, spiritual, and on and on. So if we really want to make change, and if our ultimate goal is not just validation of our own ideology but rather helping as many animals as we can, we need to address whatever viewpoint is most important to them, not to us.
.-= Kayla´s last blog ..Vegan Bake Sale =-.
i agree that this study taken at face value can be used as yet another easy out for omnivores and die-hard willfully ignorant meateaters.
i also arrived at veganism by a twisted and convoluted path, unfortunately i accepted alot of the common nutritional myths and sleazy consumerist propaganda as absolute truth without doing any research whatsoever. i also wish i had opened my eyes sooner, it took The Witness to make me go vegan.
tone down the message of animal rights and veganism to appeal to the willfully ignorant and propagandized consumerist drones. i don’t think so.
i also take exception to the orwellian tints and overtones of this study, sure it is provocative yes, but hardly conclusive. we as vegans and former meateaters know that there is a strong issue with nutrition and health.