Author: (America) Hal Herzog
Integration: Li Yan
Why are dogs pets and pigs food? The question itself is enough to catch people’s attention. In recent years, there have been endless debates about animal protection, especially when it comes to dogs, cats and other animals that are usually domestic pets. For example, the Yulin Dog Meat Festival every summer will always set off a bloody storm in the public opinion field. One of the main viewpoints of those who oppose eating dog meat is that dogs have different meanings to human beings from other animals, while those who hold the opposite view argue that dogs should have equal lives with pigs, cows and chickens, and it is unreasonable to oppose eating dog meat alone.
Compared with the arguments that seem to be unable to convince each other, Hal Herzog, an American human-animal relationist and professor of psychology at the University of West Carolina, wrote why dogs are pets and pigs are food? 》
（Why It Is So Hard to Think Straight About Animals）
It is much more peaceful. He doesn’t try to choose one of the above two viewpoints to support it, thinking it is more "correct", but discusses the complexity, inconsistency and reasons of moral concepts from the psychological level of people.
With regard to people’s attitude towards other species, the author expressed his opinion in the first sentence of the preface: "People often think about other species in a very illogical way." In the book, he used one story after another recorded for many years to show the different moral attitudes of rebellious people towards animals, and how many contradictions exist among them. Why can’t dogs eat but pigs can? Why is the giant panda more popular than the Chinese giant salamander? Why is it that catching dead fish in the market is entertainment, but if catching dead cats is considered cruel? People are not as rational as they think, at least when they treat animals.
Why is this so? The author said that the purpose of this book is not to change anyone’s moral stance or the way of treating animals, but to guide readers to think more deeply about the psychological logic and moral implications behind the relationship between human beings and animals. Compared with arguing endlessly about specific issues, facing the fact that there are a lot of moral inconsistencies in our cognition and behavior soberly and calmly can help us recognize human nature and the way in which reason and emotion interact with each other in our brains.
The following article is taken from Why Dogs Are Pets and Pigs Are Food with the authorization of the publishing house.
"Why dogs are pets and pigs are food", by Hal Herzog, translated by Leo Sen, Hainan Publishing House, June 2019.
Why do you like this and hate that? -because it’s cute.
It is easier to empathize with dogs than fleas. -Eric Green（Eric Grenen）
Judy Barrett of Greensburg, North Carolina
（Judy Barrett）
There is a question. She and her husband are both blue jays fans. They spent a lot of money in the backyard, hoping to attract blue birds to nest, and even bought a snake-proof blue nest box and a unique bird glass jar. Judy will prepare a nest of earthworms in the refrigerator so that the bluebird can enjoy the worm meal at any time. Judy’s family welcomes bluebirds to nest with open arms, but the reality is not as good as expected. When they were not paying attention, an ordinary sparrow couple occupied the nest box and laid five small sparrow eggs in the future bluebird home.
At a loss, Judy sent a letter to The New York Times’s "moralist"
（The Ethicist）
Columnist Randy Cohen（Randy Cohen）
This column is based on Abby mailbox.（Dear Abby）
Style, quick questions and answers for daily moral problems.
Judy asked, is it ethical to destroy the low-grade sparrow eggs because she wants to keep the nest for the lovely bluebird?
Cohen’s answer is no. "In the face of morality, loveliness doesn’t count."
Logically speaking, Cohen is right. But although loveliness is not important in the narrow sense of moral philosophy, it is quite important to most people and even affects people’s attitude towards this creature. For example, the survey shows that the amount of money people are willing to donate to save endangered creatures depends on the size of their eyes. This is undoubtedly a death knell for the endangered Chinese giant salamander. Chinese giant salamander is the largest and probably the ugliest amphibian in the world. Its eyes are bright and its 2-meter-long body is surrounded by a dark brown sticky epidermis. Environmental groups will never publish the picture of Chinese giant salamander on the donation leaflet, after all, it looks too ugly. In contrast, another endangered animal in China is much more pleasant, that is, the panda whose eyes are infinitely magnified by the outer black circle. Their shapes are so adorable that they even become the symbol of WWF.
Chinese giant salamander
There are 65,000 species of mammals, fish, reptiles and amphibians in the world, but only a few animals are concerned by human beings. Why do we care about giant pandas instead of Chinese giant salamanders? Why do we care about eagles and not vultures? Why do we care about bluebirds instead of sparrows? Why do we care about cheetahs instead of palm fruit bats?
(the only male mammal that can secrete milk)
? Whether we care about a particular animal usually depends on its own characteristics-whether they are lovable, what size they are, what shape their heads are, and whether they are furry.(not bad)
Still sticky.(disgusting)
Yes, whether they are similar to humans, points will be deducted if they have too many feet or too few feet. Whether they have disgusting habits, such as eating excrement or sucking blood, has something to do with their taste, but their influence is not as great as we think.
Human beings always think about the relationship with different animals in an illogical way, and it is difficult to make a final conclusion. We always think that we are rational animals, but the research of cognitive psychology and behavioral economics shows that human thinking and behavior are often illogical. For example, it has been reported that when researchers privately asked respondents how much they would like to donate to prevent oil pond pollution and protect waterfowl habitats, on average, the respondents expressed their willingness to save 2,000 birds with $80, 20,000 birds with $78 and 200,000 birds with $88. Sometimes, even animals can make more rational decisions than humans. A recent report pointed out that when choosing a new house, a group of ants can often make a more rational choice than human house buyers.
What is the state of human psychology that makes it impossible to think logically in the face of animals? In fact, the so-called human thinking is simply a brain storm that combines intuition, learning, language, culture, instinct and psychological shortcuts, so it is really difficult for us to deal with the relationship with other species logically and rationally.
Before animal morality, sensibility trumps reason.
For a long time, people have been discussing whether human moral sense comes from emotion or rational speculation. David hume, an 18th-century philosopher, thought that moral sense originated from emotion, while Kant thought that morality originated from reason. When I became interested in the psychology of human-animal relationship, I decided to find out what people were thinking when they thought about moral issues related to other animals. At that time, the field of moral psychology was Harvard psychologist lawrence kohlberg.
（Lawrence Kohlberg）
Like Kant, Kohlberg also believes that all moral decisions mostly come from careful thinking: we weigh the pros and cons of actions before making logical decisions. Kohlberg mainly studies the development of children’s moral thinking. He will tell the children a dilemma story, and then ask them to make a decision and explain the reasons behind the thinking. Kohlberg’s most classic story is about Hans, a poor man who stole expensive pills from a greedy boss to save his wife with cancer. When judging whether Hans had the right to steal drugs, Kohlberg’s children played the spirit of logicians. They weighed the possibility of Hans being arrested and the happiness that his wife might bring when she recovered.
Me and my student Shelley galvin.
（Shelley Galvin）
This experimental method is used to study how people view the animals tested in the laboratory. Our research method is very simple. Respondents can analyze a series of animal experimental situations by themselves, and then we ask respondents whether they agree or disagree with specific experiments and the reasons behind the decision: in one experiment, researchers must take stem cells from monkey embryos and transplant them into the brains of adult monkeys in order to treat Alzheimer’s disease; In order to study the role of genes and experience in the development of complex action patterns, another experimenter requested that the forelimbs of newborn mice be amputated. Both experiments are based on real experiments.
About half of the respondents accepted the monkey experiment, while only a quarter of the respondents supported the mouse amputation research. As far as monkey brain experiments are concerned, children tend to think rationally and carefully weigh the costs and benefits of sacrificing animal rights. But when faced with the issue of amputation of rats, children take a different attitude. Facing the amputation experiment, children wrote down such things as: "I object to this experiment", "Please think about the face of the amputated mouse", or even "it’s too much". Our interviewees responded emotionally to the amputation experiment of young rats instead of rationally.
Judging from the main theories of psychological and moral development, we estimate that the interviewees will take logic as their thinking principle. However, we found that children let their emotions break away. This result is obviously related to Jon Heder, the leader of contemporary moral psychology.
（Jon Haidt）
As he said, Heidt thinks that emotion often trumps reason on moral issues. Like most psychologists, Heidegger believes that human cognition involves two processes. First, it is instinctive, quick, subconscious, effortless and emotional, and then it is thoughtful, conscious, logical and completely slow. Usually, only after our intuitive judgment can we get rid of the cognitive fog and re-examine whether the original judgment dominated by emotions is appropriate.
Heidett believes that most human beings use the above two systems to make moral judgments, but illogical intuitive systems usually dominate. Heidt’s theory seems to fully echo Lucy, a special educator and animal rights activist I visited. When I asked her what role logic and emotion played in the practice of animal activism, Lucy said, "This is usually related to emotion, but in many cases, I have to find rational evidence for my emotional response, so that I can defend my position and influence others."
When people are asked if that family can eat their pets, most people will immediately categorically deny: "No! Of course you can’t eat your own dog! " But when you ask the other person to think rationally and explain what’s wrong with eating dead and painless animal carcasses, almost all the interviewees can’t give a logical explanation. Heidt called this judgment "a moral problem that makes people laugh and cry." The real reason is nausea, because it is so disgusting.
University of Pennsylvania psychologist Paul Rozin
（Paul Rozin）
Think that nausea is also a moral emotion. Generally speaking, human beings think it is disgusting to have sex with brothers and sisters. The products of the body, such as feces, urine and menstruation, are also extremely disgusting to people, and this aversion can be said to be regardless of racial culture.
We’re all hypocrites?
Is the life of spiders as important as that of egrets and human beings? Of course, logically speaking, this is completely correct. -Joan Diar
Stop making fun. No matter in any era or culture, human beings have always been hypocrites. When we criticize the hypocrisy of others, we also reveal our own absurdity. -Jon Heder.
In June, 2009, the American Veterinary Association decided to let the 10,000 veterinarians and auxiliary professionals attending the annual meeting build a sense of team trust with the wonderful activities of catching big fish. People for the ethical treatment of animals is obviously quite dissatisfied with this design, and Ashley Byrne, the project manager of the organization,
（Ashley Byrne）
An article published in the Los Angeles Times wrote: "It’s crazy to kill animals so that participants can pick up their bodies. And what a bad message does it send to the public when veterinarians take pleasure in catching the carcasses of big fish? " This passage was regarded as a laughing stock by the TV media. At first, I thought Ashley seemed too harsh. However, people for the ethical treatment of animals later issued a statement, saying, Will the participants laugh so much when they see the men in gray hats throwing the dead cats? Only then did I realize that the organization was right. Why do humans find it interesting to catch dead fish, but not the dead cat?
The deep connection between man and pet
（The Powerful Bond Between People and Pets）
Author elizabeth anderson.（Elizabeth Anderson）
I am quite confused about the inconsistency of this moral attitude. For example, she can’t understand why many pet owners wear mink coats. Anderson wrote: "I really can’t understand why owners who love cats and dogs enough to kiss them are indifferent to the fact that seals are shot in the head, skinned or mink are electrocuted by anus." In fact, this is not surprising. Those who melt instantly when they see kittens are also likely to love the color of fur. Even people who stand up for animal rights often make such contradictory actions. Scott Plous, a social psychologist, found that among the animal rights activists he interviewed, nearly 70% thought that banning clothing made of animal fur should be regarded as the primary goal of the animal protection movement, but they also admitted that they also wore leather products.
Psychologists have always known that people often don’t do what they say. A generally accepted attitude theory is called A-B-C model, which holds that the so-called attitude contains three elements-emotion: your emotional feeling about a thing; Behavior: how your attitude affects your external behavior; Cognition: How much do you know about one thing? Many times, these elements will work together. Rob Bass is a good example. Rob, a 52-year-old philosopher, has always lived a smooth life. In 2001, he read an article by anthropologist Mylan Engel.
（Mylan Engel）
After writing the article, life has changed greatly. Rob was surprised by Engel’s persuasive remarks against meat. He spent three whole weeks hoping to find out Engel’s logical mistakes or contradictions. After a month, he gave in completely. When he found out what Engel said was true(Perceptual change)
He knew that he had to stop eating meat.(Behavior change)
. A few weeks later, when he walked into the cafeteria on campus with his colleagues, he just smelled the strong smell of fried hamburger meat, and his body immediately responded: "disgusting, that smell is disgusting."(Emotional change)
. "Engel’s article made Rob have a cyclical change in emotion, perception and behavior. Now, Rob and his wife Gail Dean（Gayle Dean）
After a similar transition period, both became vegans. They oppose any form of animal exploitation, and Rob also teaches animal rights issues in moral courses.
But Rob and Gail are very few examples. Most people are not only indifferent, but also will not feel frustrated because of their contradictory behavior towards animals. The Los Angeles Times was commissioned to survey American adults’ views on the following statement by random sampling: "Do you agree that animals and humans are the same in all important points of view?" The newspaper said that about 47% people agreed with this view. I am rather skeptical about the results of the survey, so I want to know what my students think of the above statement. I made a survey of 100 students. The questionnaire not only included questions from the Los Angeles Times, but also added many questions about the treatment of animals. The results show that my suspicion is wrong. It’s just right that about 47% of students think that animals are as important as humans, but even so, it has no effect on how they view "animals being used by humans". Among the students who think that animals are as important as human beings, about half are in favor of animal experiments, 40% think it is feasible to remove animal organs to save patients, and 90% eat animals that are the same as human beings in all important points of view more often.
Why can people be so calm about the contradiction between their words and deeds? Most people’s attitude towards how other creatures are treated is exactly what philosophers call "no position"
（nonattitudes）
Or "vague position"（vacuous attitudes）
, by a large number of unrelated ideas combined with simple thoughts. In contrast, the belief system of Rob and Gail was established after thinking deeply about the moral problems related to animals. The relationship between human beings and other species is a very complicated moral issue, and most people who consider themselves animal lovers generally have a compromise idea. For example, the National Polling Center once conducted a survey. When the respondents were asked "How do you feel about animal experiments?", only one-fifth of the respondents would express strong approval or opposition.
Although there are many exceptions, the evidence shows that most people don’t pay so much attention to animal issues. In 2000, Gallup asked American adults to rate the importance of the following social issues, such as abortion rights, animal rights, gun management, environmental protection, women’s rights and consumer rights. As a result, animal rights came last. In 2001, the American humane society organization was commissioned to investigate which animal protection group contributed the most, only to find that half of the respondents couldn’t even name an animal protection group. In addition, a survey shows that only 2% of the boycotters who participate in the consumer movement care about how animals are treated. The fact is, for most people, except for personal pets, how animals are treated is really not their priority.
Billboards put up by vegetarians.
Why are we like this?
Leon festinger, 1950.
（Leon Festinger）
Put forward a heavyweight theory in psychology-when our beliefs, behaviors and attitudes are at odds, we will enter what he calls "cognitive dissonance"（cognitive dissonance）
The state of. Because cognitive dissonance brings extremely uncomfortable feelings, people try to reduce this kind of trouble caused by mental inconsistency. For example, we may change our beliefs or behaviors, or deny or distort evidence about facts.
Environmental ethicist Chris Dimm
（Chris Diehm）
Believe that human beings strive for moral consistency. He said that whenever he pointed out to the other side that the way he treated animals was inconsistent, the other side would try to correct their behavior as much as possible, or at least they would try to justify it so as to make themselves appear to be one with words. He wrote: "We have to admit that the moral relationship between human beings and animals is a confused and contradictory road: cats are pets and cows are food. When you point out the absurdity of the other person’s behavior, they will try to rationalize their behavior or make some changes in their comfort zone. I think it is a good thing to pursue moral consistency, and when people’s words and deeds are different, it will trigger us to carry out moral dialectics and thinking. "
Chris is a philosopher, and he is more concerned about the efforts of human beings to integrate their beliefs and behaviors. I am a psychologist, and I am more concerned about the carelessness shown by human beings in the face of moral issues between themselves and animals. In my experience, most people, whether cockfighters, animal researchers or pet owners, will never admit their mistakes when you point out their moral inconsistency in the face of animals.
(Sometimes I laugh quite unnaturally)
.
In a word, moral consistency is not only vague but also almost out of reach. In the real world, whether it’s our minds or emotions, we can’t decide how to treat animals.
Author: Hal Herzog
Integration: Li Yan
Editor: Li Yongbo, He Anan
Proofreading: Zhai Yongjun
