In Eating Animals, Foer uses his personal ethical revelations as a highly effective vehicle to improve the reader's own perspective. Even if one does not agree with Foer's personal view, the book still bestows a much more enlightened look on the American food industry.

Foer frequently mixes the words of others with his own. Perhaps somewhat tellingly, none of the major meatpackers or slaughterhouses would speak to him. One small, local operation, Paradise Locker Meats, broke the trend and even invited him for a tour. Foer spends much of the chapter relaying the sights and sounds of his tour, but at the end he is faced with a dilemma. One of the workers offers him a sample of the meat. “Maybe there is nothing wrong with eating it,” Foer writes, recounting the experience, “But something deep inside me... simply doesn't want the meat inside my body.” He contrasts his reluctance to eat with his desire to be friendly with the workers and with doubts of his own rationality (Foer 163). Foer's quest for personal revelation has become a moral (and social) dilemma, which he in turn presents to us.

Disconnect

Often, in an attempt to justify things they find offensive, people attempt to disconnect, to remove themselves from what is happening. Take, for example, the willful ignorance toward the abuse of animals and humans alike in the food industry. Many people could never condone the conditions in the factory farms and slaughterhouses, but because nobody is willing to directly involve themselves – because everyone is disconnected – the problem remains out of sight and mind. This can also be seen in the objectification of disadvantaged people such as the poor or immigrants. “It's not MY problem,” is the constant refrain, “Why should I do anything?” Reinforcing this is the psychological “bystander effect”, where more bystanders makes it paradoxically less likely for someone to assist someone in need. Nobody wants to be the first to approach a problem everyone else is trying to ignore.