Vegetarian and Nonvegetarian Children's Judgments of Harm to Animals and Humans

Abstract

Abstract

This research study sought to determine if vegetarian and nonvegetarian children differ in their evaluations of animal suffering as compared to human suffering. In particular, we asked if vegetarian children would be more likely than nonvegetarian children to judge physical attacks against animals as similar to moral transgressions against human beings. To this end, we presented 60 children ranging in age from 7 to 12 years with story cards that depicted humans engaging in physical attacks (e.g., kicking) against animals that could be classified as pets (e.g., dog), farm animals (e.g., cow) or wild animals (e.g., raccoon). For comparison, children were also presented with story cards depicting these same physical attacks against individuals familiar to the participant (e.g., sibling, classmate). Forty of the participants were vegetarian children (20 with vegetarian parents and 20 with nonvegetarian parents), and the remaining 20 participants were nonvegetarian (all with nonvegetarian parents). Unexpectedly, our findings indicated that all participants—regardless of their status as vegetarian or nonvegetarian—condemned physical attacks against the three types of animals and indeed judged such attacks more severely than identical acts against humans. When justifying these judgments, participants tended to focus on the vulnerability of the animals, particularly as the recipients of unjustified acts of violence. In addition, all participants condemned physical attacks against pets very severely and attacks against farm animals less severely—with wild animals in between. Key Words: Moral reasoning—Social domain theory—Vegetarianism—Animal welfare.