Reasoning about eating animals across the lifespan

Meat consumption contributes to climate change and causes animal suffering. Being aware of animal suffering while at the same time eating meat may lead to experiences of meat-related conflict. One outcome of this conflict are the reasoning justifications used to support or oppose meat-eating. The present study builds on burgeoning work that has examined children's reasoning about eating non-human animals by conceptually replicating and extending British findings in Germany. Here, 507 participants aged between 8 and 74 were asked to reason about why it is (not) okay to eat animals. Overall, meat-eating was justified as natural, necessary, or based on animal categories, and condemned as unnecessary or referencing animal welfare or rights. Conditional justifications for meat-eating included humane husbandry or reduced consumption. As hypothesized, children were more likely to mention animal welfare, whereas adolescents and adults were more likely to refer to eating meat as natural or to humane husbandry conditions. Additionally, participants' reasoning differed as a function of their moral evaluation of meat-eating. Opponents of eating animals were more likely to reason about animal welfare, unlike proponents who were more likely to refer to meat-eating as natural or necessary. Compared to proponents, participants who were ambivalent about eating meat were more likely to mention animal welfare. Lastly, an exploratory investigation of generational reasoning differences between emerging adults and adults revealed no effects. Overall, our findings suggest a developmental trajectory from a focus on animal welfare in childhood to a focus on biological and conventional justifications beginning in adolescence.