[fjh]

> I'd agree that the line in this case seems to be quite arbitrary but I'd respectfully suggest that it's not fair to say individuals whom eat meat having not given it much thought.

It's fair to say that giving this issue much thought strongly correlates with thinking that eating animals is immoral. But thinking it's immoral doesn't necessarily imply you are a vegetarian. I can't find the statistics right now, but there was a study that compared philosophers' position on eating meat to the general population's and found that philosophers (particularly ethicists) usually thought eating meat was wrong, even though their rate of vegetarianism didn't really reflect that.

[talkingquickly]

I'd be interested to see the method behind any data which looks at whether giving the issue much thought correlates with thinking that eating animals is immoral.

In particular with reference to the study you mention, whether it includes any assessment of the answers from those in the general population sample who could be considered to have given it much thought vs those who haven't.

It's the type of question where it seems like the risk of selection bias is huge. I know plenty of people who could, if asked directly give a very well reasoned argument about why they eat meat, but they don't feel especially passionate about it so wouldn't publicise this viewpoint.

So the people we'll tend to hear from are the people who have a) given it thought and b) come to a viewpoint which is contrary to the mainstream and c) feel passionately that others should come to the same realisation.

It sounds like a really interesting study, but in general I think it would be difficult to find a study on any topic which concluded "philosophers largely agree with the general public".