Key Concepts

Understanding veganism is not only about learning new recipes and forming new habits. It also involves examining the belief systems, social norms, and psychological processes that shape how we think about animals and food.

Several key concepts can help us understand why animal exploitation is so widely accepted, even among people who care deeply about compassion, fairness, and justice. These concepts go much deeper than what is presented below, but here is a brief introduction to some of the key concepts in the animal rights movement:

Carnism

The term carnism was introduced by psychologist Dr. Melanie Joy to describe the invisible belief system that conditions people to eat certain animals while loving and protecting others (1).

This invisibility is crucial. Most people who eat animals do not see themselves as following an ideology. Eating animals is presented as “just what we do”; it is normal, natural, and “necessary”. Because it is rarely questioned, it does not appear to be a belief system at all.

Yet participating in animal consumption requires accepting a core assumption: That it is justified to kill and exploit animals for human benefit. The fact that almost everyone shares that belief makes it less visible, but it is still a belief.

Carnism is maintained in part by keeping the realities of animal agriculture out of public view. Slaughterhouses are hidden from sight, and the act of killing is hidden from the public. Packaging features idealised images of small family farms, even when products come from industrial facilities. This is not unique to animal agriculture industries, and research shows that distancing consumers from production processes makes it easier to overlook ethical concerns (2).

Occasionally, this illusion is disrupted by undercover footage or investigative reporting. When this happens, public outrage often follows. But attention tends to focus on “bad actors” rather than the system itself. A few individuals are usually given a slap on the wrist, or a fine or prison sentence in the worst cases, but the underlying structure remains unchallenged and unchanged. So long as justice is seen to be done, we as consumers feel better about continuing to buy these products.

Carnism also persists because it is unnamed. We have a word for people who reject animal exploitation (vegans) but not for those who support it. This makes exploitation appear to be the default position, and resistance appear unusual or even abnormal. There are vegans, and then there are the “normal people.”

From our early childhood onwards, carnism is reinforced by family habits, social norms, advertising, and industry messaging (1, 3). These are powerful forms of social pressure. When you grow up in an environment where everyone you know, every institute you are educated by and every company you engage with all share the same biases as you do, it can be extremely difficult to isolate and identify them for what they are.

Speciesism

Carnism is closely connected to a broader ideology known as speciesism. Speciesism refers to the belief that members of one species, usually humans, are inherently more valuable than members of other species, and that this justifies unequal treatment (4).

The philosopher Peter Singer popularised the term, arguing that giving greater moral weight to similar interests simply because of species membership is a form of discrimination (4).

Humans differ from other animals in many ways, including language, technology, and culture. It is true that human animals are generally more intelligent, certainly more technologically advanced and that we are radically different from many of the animals that we are. But difference, intelligence and dominance does not eqia; greater moral worth.

When vegans speak about equality between species, we are not claiming that humans and non-human animals are identical, or that animals should have identical rights. Rather, we are asserting that animals’ basic interests in avoiding pain, continuing to live, and pursuing wellbeing, deserve moral serious consideration.

Psychological research shows that people who strongly endorse speciesist beliefs are more likely to support animal exploitation and resist animal protection policies (5). This makes sense when we stop to consider it, since we all have a vested interest in the status quo that allows us to exploit animals to serve our own interests.

Speciesism shapes how we categorise animals, too. Dogs are companions, cows are food, pigs are meat and chickens are commodities. These distinctions are not based on intelligence, emotional capacity, or the ability to suffer. Pigs, for example, perform as well as dogs on many cognitive tasks (6). Yet one is protected, and the other is killed.

Legal systems often reflect these hierarchies, too. Practices that would be illegal if performed on companion animals are routinely permitted in farming, even in “high welfare” operations.

Othering

In order for speciesism to function, animals must also be viewed as fundamentally “other.”

Othering is the process by which groups are portrayed as fundamentally different, inferior, or less worthy of concern. Social psychologists have long studied this mechanism in relation to human prejudice (7), but it can be applied to non-human animals, too.

Animals are often depicted as simple, unthinking, or radically different from humans, which makes it easier to justify using them as resources. At the same time, research increasingly shows that many animals experience complex emotions, form social bonds, and display individual personalities (8). Many of the abilities traditionally singled out as unique to humans, such as the use of tools, empathy and cultural practices are increasingly being documented among non-human animals.

Despite this evidence, cultural narratives continue to emphasise human exceptionalism. Research on dehumanisation suggests that groups perceived as more “animal-like” are usually treated with less moral concern, even when they share the same species as us. This means that our othering and objectificatioin of animals can seep into how humans treat other humans, as well as the animals we exploit (9).

Comparing a group of humans to “animals” is a common tactic used by people who want to discriminate against that group. In this sense, othering animals may help normalise broader patterns of exclusion and hierarchy. Many vegans believe that until we challenge the fundamental idea that some lives are worth less than others, we will never see a truly equal, democratic society.

Denialism

Carnism and speciesism are reinforced not only through invisibility, but through active denial.

Industries that depend on animal exploitation invest heavily in marketing and public relations. These campaigns often highlight “happy animals” and “natural farming,” while avoiding the uncomfortable realities of farming trillions of animals annually (10).

But denial does not come only from corporations; consumers themselves frequently engage in motivated ignorance. Research shows that people often avoid information that might challenge their behaviour or create moral discomfort (11), which is a trend that you are bucking by reading this article. For example, many people deny or minimise well-documented practices in dairy production, such as:

• Repeated forced impregnation
• Early separation of calves
• Routine killing of male calves

These practices are widely documented, the industry themselves do not deny that they are standard practice, yet they are still commonly disputed or dismissed by consumers. Psychologists describe this as motivated reasoning: selectively accepting information that protects one’s self-image (12). No one wants to think of themselves as selfish or cruel.

Denialism around animal agriculture resembles other forms of denial, such as climate change denial. In both cases, strong evidence is rejected because it conflicts with personal habits or economic interests. It is easier to dismiss the evidence as “biased” or “fake news” than it is to accept that you may have been wrong, and take the appropriate action to put it right.

Cognitive Dissonance

Denialism is closely linked to cognitive dissonance – which is a term for the psychological discomfort that arises when beliefs and actions conflict (13).

Most people see themselves as compassionate, yet any also eat animals. These two identities are difficult to reconcile. To reduce discomfort, people often adjust their beliefs rather than their behaviour.

Research on the “meat paradox” shows that when people eat animals, they are more likely to:

• Downplay animals’ mental abilities
• Deny their capacity for suffering
• Describe them as less worthy of moral concern (14)

In this context, people often find themselves defending ideas that they would readily dismiss outside of conversations about animals rights. This allows people to maintain a positive self-image while continuing harmful practices.

Another common strategy is the belief in “humane slaughter” – the idea that killing can be morally acceptable if done “nicely.” Ethicists argue that this reframing serves primarily to ease consumer discomfort (15), rather than to make life any easier for the animals being exploited for profit.

Festinger’s original work on cognitive dissonance showed that people are remarkably skilled at rationalising contradictions when change feels difficult (13). This almost certainly applies to veganism, which involves radical self-reflection and a sometimes difficult lifestyle change.

Making the Connection

Many people react strongly to footage of animal suffering, yet continue consuming animal products. This reflects a failure to connect personal behaviour with systemic outcomes.

Carol J. Adams describes this as the “absent referent” – the animal disappears from the product, allowing meat to be seen as food rather than as part of a once-living being (14). Research on moral disengagement shows that separating consumption from production reduces feelings of responsibility (15). People often view buying meat and killing animals as unrelated events, even though one fairly obviously depends on the other.

Large numbers also play a role here. When harm is spread across billions or even trillions of animals if we include fish, responsibility feels abstract. It is hard to feel in any way responsibile for the deaths of trillions of animals per year. Psychologists call this “diffusion of responsibility” (16). Because the system is complex and impersonal, individuals feel distant from its consequences.

Vegans often describe the phenomenon of “making the connection” – the moment when this separation collapses. This is when food is seen as linked directly to an individual animal and to our own choices. You suddenly see a direct link between the food on your plate and the animal who had to suffer for it. For many of us, it is a profound realisation.

This recognition can be emotionally difficult though, too. It involves confronting past behaviour and accepting moral responsibility. But it also creates the opportunity of meaningful change, of aligning your actions with your beliefs. This can be hugely positive for our wellbeing and our relationship with animals.

Moving Forward

None of these belief systems are consciously chosen, most of us inherit them through culture, family, and social norms.

Challenging them requires reflection, humility, and a willingness to feel uncomfortable. Psychological research suggests that lasting ethical change is most likely when people engage in honest self-examination rather than defensiveness (17). This is far more difficult, but in many ways it is also more rewarding.

Veganism is not about moral superiority, it is about aligning behaviour more closely with values of equality, fairness, and personal responsibility. Change is rarely easy, but it begins with the willingness to question what we have always taken for granted.

Bibliography

1. Joy, M. (2010). Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows. Conari Press.
2. Rothgerber, H. (2013). Real men don’t eat (vegetable) quiche: Masculinity and the justification of meat consumption. Psychology of Men & Masculinity.
3. Piazza, J. et al. (2015). Rationalizing meat consumption. Appetite.
4. Singer, P. (1975). Animal Liberation. HarperCollins.
5. Caviola, L., Everett, J., & Faber, N. (2019). The moral standing of animals. Social Psychological and Personality Science.
6. Marino, L., & Colvin, C. (2015). Thinking pigs. International Journal of Comparative Psychology.
7. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict.
8. Bekoff, M. (2007). The Emotional Lives of Animals. New World Library.
9. Haslam, N. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review.
10. Freeman, C. (2009). This little piggy went to press. Communication, Culture & Critique.
11. Golman, R., Hagmann, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2017). Information avoidance. Journal of Economic Literature.
12. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reason ing. Psychological Bulletin.
13. Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press.
14. Adams, C. J. (1990). The Sexual Politics of Meat. Continuum.
15. Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement. Personality and Social Psychology Review.
16. Darley, J., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
17. Steele, C. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology.

Support independent, research-based advocacy

Helping keep free, educational content online

No ads, no paywalls, no affiliate links