Could you expand on why you think that it makes a significant difference?
E.g. if the goal is to model what epistemic distortions you might face, or to suggests directions of change for fewer distortions, then coherence is only of limited concern (a coherent group might be easier to change, but on the other hand it might also more easily coordinate to oppose change).
I’m not sure why you say they are not an ideology, at least under my model of ideology that I have developed for other purposes, they fit the definition (i.e. I believe carnism involves a set of correlated beliefs about life and society that fit together).
Also not sure what you mean by carnists not having an agenda, in my experience most carnists have an agenda of wanting to eat lots of cheap delicious animal flesh.
I tend to think of ideology as a continuum, rather than a strict binary. Like people tend to have varying degrees of belief and trust in the sides of a conflict, and various unique factors influencing their views, and this leads to a lot of shades of nuance that can’t really be captured with a binary carnist/not-carnist definition.
But I think there are still some correlated beliefs where you could e.g. take their first principal component as an operationalization of carnism. Some beliefs that might go into this, many of which I have encountered from carnists:
“People should be allowed to freely choose whether they want to eat factory-farmed meat or not.”
“Animals cannot suffer in any way that matters.”
“One should take an evolutionary perspective and realize that factory farming is actually good for animals. After all, if not for humans putting a lot of effort into farming them, they wouldn’t even exist at their current population levels.”
“People who do enough good things out of their own charity deserve to eat animals without concerning themselves with the moral implications.”
“People who design packaging for animal products ought to make it look aesthetically pleasing and comfortable.”
“It is offensive and unreasonable for people to claim that meat-eating is a horribly harmful habit.”
“Animals are made to be used by humans.”
“Consuming animal products like meat or milk is healthier than being strictly vegan.”
One could make a defense of some of the statements. For instance Elizabeth has made a to-me convincing defense of the last statement. I don’t think this is a bug in the definition of carnism, it just shows that some carnist beliefs can be good and true. One ought to be able to admit that ideology is real and matters while also being able to recognize that it’s not a black-and-white issue.
Could you expand on why you think that it makes a significant difference?
E.g. if the goal is to model what epistemic distortions you might face, or to suggests directions of change for fewer distortions, then coherence is only of limited concern (a coherent group might be easier to change, but on the other hand it might also more easily coordinate to oppose change).
I’m not sure why you say they are not an ideology, at least under my model of ideology that I have developed for other purposes, they fit the definition (i.e. I believe carnism involves a set of correlated beliefs about life and society that fit together).
Also not sure what you mean by carnists not having an agenda, in my experience most carnists have an agenda of wanting to eat lots of cheap delicious animal flesh.
Could you clarify who you are defining as carnists?
I tend to think of ideology as a continuum, rather than a strict binary. Like people tend to have varying degrees of belief and trust in the sides of a conflict, and various unique factors influencing their views, and this leads to a lot of shades of nuance that can’t really be captured with a binary carnist/not-carnist definition.
But I think there are still some correlated beliefs where you could e.g. take their first principal component as an operationalization of carnism. Some beliefs that might go into this, many of which I have encountered from carnists:
“People should be allowed to freely choose whether they want to eat factory-farmed meat or not.”
“Animals cannot suffer in any way that matters.”
“One should take an evolutionary perspective and realize that factory farming is actually good for animals. After all, if not for humans putting a lot of effort into farming them, they wouldn’t even exist at their current population levels.”
“People who do enough good things out of their own charity deserve to eat animals without concerning themselves with the moral implications.”
“People who design packaging for animal products ought to make it look aesthetically pleasing and comfortable.”
“It is offensive and unreasonable for people to claim that meat-eating is a horribly harmful habit.”
“Animals are made to be used by humans.”
“Consuming animal products like meat or milk is healthier than being strictly vegan.”
One could make a defense of some of the statements. For instance Elizabeth has made a to-me convincing defense of the last statement. I don’t think this is a bug in the definition of carnism, it just shows that some carnist beliefs can be good and true. One ought to be able to admit that ideology is real and matters while also being able to recognize that it’s not a black-and-white issue.