Appetite：人们如何来捍卫“吃肉”是合理的？

  近日，刊登于国际杂志Appetite上的一篇研究论文中，来自兰开斯特大学的研究人员通过研究表示，证明自身饮食习惯的食肉一族或许自身感觉并不是那么内疚，而是对社会不平等变得更加宽容。
  文章中，研究者就检测了食肉一族们“捍卫”吃肉的众多途径，研究者发现，大多数杂食者都会利用四种合理化规则中的一种来通过规范他们的行为，从而保护其动物肉制品的消费；Jared Piazza教授说道，人们和动物群之间的关系非常复杂，很多人钟情于动物公司（宠物医院等），每年花费亿万美元对宠物进行健康护理；然而有些人却钟情于以动物的肉来作为美食，在日常生活中，人们往往会采取很多策略来克服态度和行为之间明显的矛盾。
  其中一条重要且普遍的策略就是如何来合理地说明，肉类消费是自然且必须又很普遍的。文章中研究者调查了学生和成年人的态度，即为何他们觉得吃肉是合情合理的。用于证明可以吃肉的经典理论包括以下四点：1）天然性，人类是天然的食肉动物；2）必须性，肉类可以为人类提供必须的营养物质；3）正常性，我非常想吃肉；4）肉类非常鲜美。
  研究者表示，拥有道德动机的素食者或许会通过一种暗示的方式来责备杂食者；很多人通常会认为吃肉是自然的，必须的，而且是非常正常的；上述四条准则往往是食肉一族分散内疚心里的强有力的工具。最后研究者表示，或许我们应当以理性的态度来看待吃肉“这件事”。（转化医学网360zhyx.com）
  以上为转化医学网原创翻译整理，转载请注明出处和链接！
转化医学网推荐的原文摘要：

Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns.
Appetite     10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.011 
Jared Piazzaa, , , Matthew B. Rubyb, Steve Loughnanc, Mischel Luongd, Juliana Kulikb, Hanne M. Watkinsd, Mirra Seigermand
Recent theorizing suggests that the 4Ns – that is, the belief that eating meat is natural, normal, necessary, and nice – are common rationalizations people use to defend their choice of eating meat. However, such theorizing has yet to be subjected to empirical testing. Six studies were conducted on the 4Ns. Studies 1a and 1b demonstrated that the 4N classification captures the vast majority (83%–91%) of justifications people naturally offer in defense of eating meat. In Study 2, individuals who endorsed the 4Ns tended also to objectify (dementalize) animals and included fewer animals in their circle of moral concern, and this was true independent of social dominance orientation. Subsequent studies (Studies 3–5) showed that individuals who endorsed the 4Ns tend not to be motivated by ethical concerns when making food choices, are less involved in animal-welfare advocacy, less driven to restrict animal products from their diet, less proud of their animal-product decisions, tend to endorse Speciesist attitudes, tend to consume meat and animal products more frequently, and are highly committed to eating meat. Furthermore, omnivores who strongly endorsed the 4Ns tended to experience less guilt about their animal-product decisions, highlighting the guilt-alleviating function of the 4Ns.