In this article, Researcher Network member Cara Langford Watts discusses how and why people justify animal consumption within online spaces
Belonging, Bias and the Ethics of Justification: Online Discourses of Animal Consumption and Climate Inaction
In a world increasingly shaped by ecological crisis and social division, the need to feel morally ‘good’ and socially accepted fuels the ways individuals justify everyday harm. My PhD research focuses on online discourses about animal consumption, which sit within the broader ethical debate about why people continue to consume animals despite what we know about the climate crisis and animal harms. What I am trying to understand is the social and psychological mechanics that are behind everyday ethical choices. Exploring the data, it has become clear that these choices are bound up with belonging, identity and the kinds of cognitive shortcuts people use to defend practices that feel normal or safe within their social worlds.
The online spaces I've been analysing are particularly revealing. They tend to use rhetorical rationalisations, claims like “it's natural” and “I only buy locally sourced grass-fed beef”, or denying any personal responsibility and positioning the climate crisis as someone else's problem (Kautish et al., 2023; Rodan & Mummery, 2019). I kept noticing that these justifications weren't being used solely to defend meat eating on an individual level. They were functioning almost like boundary markers: lines drawn between ordinary consumers and those perceived as extreme or morally disruptive, such as vegans and animal rights advocates. In that sense, these conversations aren't just about animals; they're also about maintaining group norms and moral belonging (Roden and Mummery, 2019).
Through digital ethnography and reflexive thematic analysis, what emerged was a dense tangle of social identity processes, status quo bias and moral positioning. People often defend eating animals not because they had carefully weighed the evidence, but because the alternatives felt socially risky or symbolically loaded. This became especially apparent when I compared the rhetorical strategies with findings from climate-impact research, which clearly demonstrates the environmental weight of animal agriculture (Springmann et al., 2018). There is a fascinating discord here: the evidence is overwhelming, yet the social norms surrounding food seem to elicit a greater influence than scientific ecological reality.
Another observation that kept returning through the data set was how the desire to belong can operate almost like a political tool. By reinforcing certain dietary norms, sometimes aggressively, individuals maintain allegiance to the group even when ethical contradictions are obvious. In effect, the need to belong can eclipse moral considerations, complicating attempts to talk meaningfully about climate responsibility or animal ethics (Roden and Mummery, 2019). There is also a persistent ideological threat response: plant-based eating is read by some as a challenge to established cultural identities.
Alongside the social analysis, I draw on research that demonstrates the tangible health and ecological benefits of plant-based diets (Thomas et al., 2023. Springmann et al., 2018). From my perspective, these studies help situate my findings: if adopting a plant-based diet or reduced meat diet can meaningfully lower emissions and reduce animal suffering, then understanding why people resist such shifts becomes even more important. Yet resistance cannot simply be framed as ignorance or apathy; it's entangled with bias identity and habit.
Because of this, my research argues for a culturally attuned approach to addressing ethical disengagement around food. Many of the patterns I encountered reflect what Kautish et al (2023) and Taibi et al (2023) describe as moral disengagement, strategies for distancing oneself from the moral implications of everyday behaviour. If we want to move beyond defensive, habitual narratives, then the conversation needs to shift towards reflective engagement and shared values rather than accusation or moral gatekeeping.
Ultimately, what I hope this work contributes is a way of naming the discursive mechanisms that keep harmful practices intact. By recognising how belonging, bias and justification interact, we can have more productive discussions about climate action and animal rights. And perhaps, with greater awareness of how these online narratives function, there is the potential to support a social transition away from defensive rationalisations towards more reflective and hopefully more ethical forms of engagement (Roden and Mummery, 2019; Taibi et al., 2023).
Kautish, P., Thaichon, P., & Soni, P. (2023). Environmental values and sustainability: mediating role of nature connectedness, and love for nature toward vegan food consumption. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 23(3), 1130-1145. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.2267
Rodan, D. and Mummery, J. (2019). Animals Australia and the challenges of vegan stereotyping. M/C Journal, 22(2). https://doi.org/10.5204/mcj.1510
Rodan, D. and Mummery, J. (2019). Vegan: ethical considerations in challenging meat-eating norms. M/C Journal, 22(2). https://doi.org/10.5204/mcj.1522
Springmann, M., Wiebe, K., Mason-D’Croz, D., Sulser, T., Rayner, M., & Scarborough, P. (2018). Health and nutritional aspects of sustainable diet strategies and their association with environmental impacts: a global modelling analysis with country-level detail. The Lancet Planetary Health, 2(10), e451-e461. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2542-5196(18)30206-7
Taibi, D., Scifo, L., Bruno, N., & Fulantelli, G. (2023). Social media literacy to support a conscious use of social media in adolescents and improve their psychological well-being: a pilot study. Sustainability, 15(17), 12726. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151712726
Thomas, M., Calle, M., & Fernández, M. (2023). Healthy plant-based diets improve dyslipidemias, insulin resistance, and inflammation in metabolic syndrome. a narrative review. Advances in Nutrition, 14(1), 44-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advnut.2022.10.002
