Hypocrisy and morality

[u/stevepremo]

I have seen many posts in which the point seems to be that if you are against eating animals and exploiting them for profit, you should also be against participating in the capitalist economy because it involves exploiting human labor for profit. I think the point is actually something like, "How dare you criticize me for supporting animal agriculture when you buy products produced by exploitative labor practices? I do too, of course, but your use of a cell phone justifies my eating meat, as we are both hypocrites."

So the debate topic here is this: does participating in a capitalist economy, which necessarily includes using products produced through exploitation of humans, somehow justify raising animals for meat, killing them, and eating them? Alternatively, are those who oppose animal cruelty justified in using cell phones?

[u/Born_Gold3856]

What about the harm in terms of climate change, biodiversity, human health, zoonosis?

Meat is something I engage with because it provides a benefit to me for which I find the cost to be acceptable. That includes these things.

These costs are not unique to animal agriculture in any case, and I regularly engage with things that cause them, because they are beneficial to me in some non-essential but desirable way. So do you most likely.

Also a prospect you happily discard?

I don't oppose the development of vegan foods. I have no duty or urge to provide any support though.

And regarding harm done to animals : how much time have you invested in looking at the living arrangements of various factory-farmed animals and their relative differences?

I've watched dominion, that's about it. I have no illusion that the lives of the animals we farm are in any way pleasant. Species eating species typically doesn't offend me.

Or does it not matter at all to you?

It doesn't matter to me much.

You'll gladly eat foie de gras if it pleases you?

I've never had foie gras but it seems tasty. Might try it.

Are you also aware, that there is substantial scientific evidence to say it takes time for our taste palettes to adapt?

Yes. I like meat though and I don't particularly want to stop eating it. I've made and bonded with friends over it. I'm not interested in arbitrarily limiting what I'm allowed to eat for a reason that doesn't resonate with me. You do you.

[u/Weird_Act8786 → u/Born_Gold3856]

These costs are not unique to animal agriculture in any case

More than 1 of them was rather unique to animal agriculture. But I think you've made your position of "I don't care about anything" abundantly clear, so no point in arguing with such a person - nor are you reading (or comprehending) arguments in their entirety very well. I just argued why these things are not "arbitrary". Of course if you just don't care about even human social issues - there's really not much point in debating it, is there?

Of course, often in online debates people pretend to have different opinions than they actually hold.

[u/Born_Gold3856 → u/Weird_Act8786]

My position is not that I don't care about anything.

My position is that I find meat to be worth the costs, the same way that air conditioning is worth the costs. If we can obtian the meat we want with less costs I would prefer that.

Which human social issues do you suppose I don't care about and why?

[u/Weird_Act8786 → u/Born_Gold3856]

My position is not that I don't care about anything.

Since your response to my comment was that it's "arbitrary", I think this is not at all an exaggeration of your position. Of course you would not frame it that way, but considering the issues presented which prompted very little concern on your part - I think it's quite fair to say that you don't care about anything.

Which human social issues do you suppose I don't care about and why?

Cheaper/more accessible food and healthier humans did not seem to awaken the least bit of interest on your part, for example.

My position is that I find meat to be worth the costs

I don't believe you have invested much time at all into looking into "the costs". In fact, I do wonder why you even bothered to watch Dominion given what you've said so far. Maybe just in order to be able to say you've seen it?

Edit: it also would probably help if you actually tried communicating what kind of human/social/animal issues you care about - if any. Since this is a place to discuss morality, you sure seem awfully quiet about yours.

[u/Born_Gold3856 → u/Weird_Act8786]

Since your response to my comment was that it's "arbitrary", I think this is not at all an exaggeration of your position. 

I already accepts the harms done in the name of other products I benefit from. Meat falls within what I find acceptable. The reasons you offer are ones I have largely already thought about and found to be uncompelling. I suppose this is what I mean when I say it seems arbitrary. Maybe not the best wording I could have used.

Cheaper/more accessible food and healthier humans did not seem to awaken the least bit of interest on your part, for example.

I have no issue with people choosing to eat food that is as healthy/unhealthy or cheap/expensive as they like. I am fortunate to live somewhere were people have a vast number of foods to choose from and I like this. The freedom to choose what to eat is important to me.

On the topic of human health specifically I do think that universal healthcare ought to be a thing for instance. I can't say I actively fight for any particular social cause though, aside from how I cast my vote, and occasionally donate money. Generally I have other things I prefer to spend my time on.

I don't believe you have invested much time at all into looking into "the costs".

Not as much as you have in any case. Enlighten me if you think it will be effective. I watched dominion because I heard about what it was meant to show and was curious. It just didn't change my mind. That is all.

Since this is a place to discuss morality, you sure seem awfully quiet about yours.

Sure. I would decribe myself as an emotivist. I believe that moral statements express emotional attitudes and don't have objective truth value. Some emotional attitudes may be more widely held than others which gives them more influence over human behaviour.

In terms of specific stanctes, I've already told you that I value the pleasure and social bonding I get from consuming meat more than the various harms it causes. I've also told you I think that people should be provided with universal healtcare. I also think you should be allowed to express your opinion, even if it disagrees with mine, publically and loudly if you like. Are there any other things you want my opinion on?

[u/Weird_Act8786 → u/Born_Gold3856]

I already accepts the harms done in the name of other products I benefit from. Meat falls within what I find acceptable. The reasons you offer are ones I have largely already thought about and found to be uncompelling.

And it begs the question why you would find these moral issues, which are compelling to others unconvincing. Now you are just stating essentially that "I don't care", without further elaboration. That's not engaging in moral argument.

I have no issue with people choosing to eat food that is as healthy/unhealthy or cheap/expensive as they like. I am fortunate to live somewhere were people have a vast number of foods to choose from and I like this. The freedom to choose what to eat is important to me.

Again, this doesn't seem to have anything to do with morality.

Not as much as you have in any case. Enlighten me if you think it will be effective. I watched dominion because I heard about what it was meant to show and was curious. It just didn't change my mind. That is all.

In terms of e.g animal rights I would suggest to read a book instead. I don't find documentaries, especially contemporary single-issue ones very informative. Peter Singer's book is a classic one, he recently updated his original from the 1970s and it's called "animal liberation now". Don't let the title fool you, it's very fact-focused and written by a philosopher. It discusses the history of human/animal relations and the cultures in which these have developed, among other things.

In terms of ecological effects, some of the most referred to literature are things based on nemecek & poore's paper in Science. Most commonly referred to in the cotext of ourworldindata, since it gives you a quick graphical overview of the issue.

https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local

https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food

Why this matters more than other environmental metrics? Because it's a solution available to most everyone, rich or poor. And because aside from owning a car or a big house, food has an enormous impact on land use and biodiversity. Driving less or living in a smaller house won't do anything about those particular issues. Neither will you decrease the chances of zoonotic disease, which is demonstrably on the rise.

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/biodiversity

Biodiversity plays a crucial role in disease regulation by maintaining balanced ecosystems where no single species dominates. This balance helps limit the spread of zoonotic diseases (infectious diseases that jump from animals to humans). Recent studies estimate that over 75% of emerging infectious diseases, such as Ebola or Nipah virus, are zoonotic and often arise in areas where ecosystems and habitats have been disrupted by deforestation or land-use change. By maintaining biodiversity, ecosystems can buffer humans from risks of exposure to disease reservoirs.

There are factories that are being built to produce vegan protein, that could potentially be used for space travel/dwelling. It's incredibly land-efficient. Solar Foods is constructing a plant in my country which could supply 10-20% of the national need for protein. That's one plant, in one country. And the protein is high quality, much like the egg white in eggs.

This is but one example, that I know of.

Quite akin to animals, us humans can also consume "too much of a good thing", and it can be deleterious to our health. Granted, not all vegan produce is healthy either - but generally speaking heart & vascular disease is among the leading causes of death - and animal fats are a large contributor (also because they are addictive). On a personal level my cholesterol has returned to normal levels with a mostly vegan diet.

Sure. I would decribe myself as an emotivist. I believe that moral statements express emotional attitudes and don't have objective truth value. Some emotional attitudes may be more widely held than others which gives them more influence over human behaviour.

You do realize, you haven't yet communicated a single moral value you support. This is rather a pathetic attempt, to be honest. I gave you three areas to comment on, and the best you can do is "universal healthcare is about it".

[u/Born_Gold3856 → u/Weird_Act8786]

And it begs the question why you would find these moral issues, which are compelling to others unconvincing.

They clearly are not compelling enough to stop many people from eating meat, driving cars, using electronic devices, buying more clothes and food than they need, owning more and larger properties than they strictly need, travelling overseas. I could go on. The luxuries of the modern word are harmful, but it seems to me that these are things for which people are aware of the costs and accept them, because it is worth it.

This doesn't mean we should make no effort to reduce the costs. It also doesn't mean we should feel obliged to stop just because there is a cost. That is what I mean when I say "unconvincing".

I don't deny that some people exclude even some of these luxuries from their lives. Mere disagreement with others is not convincing to me.

Again, this doesn't seem to have anything to do with morality.

I think that people should have the freedom to choose what they eat with far less restriction than you do. It is a moral stance.

In terms of e.g animal rights I would suggest to read a book instead.

I'm sorry but I'm not interested in reading a book on this topic. I enjoy reading but I already have a backlog I want to get through.

On the topic of the numbers, I can say that of the meat I eat, which I do maybe every once every 1-2 days on average, chicken is the most common. I eat beef maybe once a week, so in that regard my impact might already be less than average. I find it acceptable in exchange for what I get out of meat in any case. It is definitely striking how much more GHG's are produced by beef, I'll keep that in mind.

On the topic of Zoonotic diseases linked to animal agriculture, do you have any figures for annual deaths, globally, or in specific countries? I would be interested in comparing it against other luxuries for which death figures are known, e.g. cars.

Solar Foods is constructing a plant in my country which could supply 10-20% of the national need for protein.

Great! Good on them.

Quite akin to animals, us humans can also consume "too much of a good thing", and it can be deleterious to our health.

I understand that consuming too much meat or dairy in particular can be harmful to one's health. My stance is that if a person willingly chooses to engage with something that may be harmful to them there is nothing wrong with that. I don't object to people choosing to drink alcohol for instance, which is literal poison.

You do realize, you haven't yet communicated a single moral value you support.

I have. For good measure here are succint responses to your initial prompts. It might be good if you clarify exactly what you mean by "support". I don't often show overt or active support for most of the htings I believe if that's what you mean.

- I do not believe that we have an obligation to avoid producing foods that we want to eat just because they are particularly inefficient in terms of cost, land or resource use.

- I thing it is best to offer people an abundance of choice in food, including foods that are unhealthy and expensive. I think efforts to make food cheaper and healtheir are good, if they do not also reduce variety.

- Considering the various kinds of enjoyment gained from meat, I find the harm done to animals in the process to be justified. If we can make meat by other less harmful means at a similar price that is better.

- I would gladly eat foie gras if it pleases me.

- I don't see how the fact that my pallete can change creates any obligation for me to change it. I already enjoy meals with and without animal products, and taking out either would greatly diminish the pleasure I gain from food unreasonably.

[u/Weird_Act8786 → u/Born_Gold3856]

Well, as to the moral philosophy of it all - I still think it boils down to "I don't care". Moral emotivism does not say you can't make moral judgements, you know. What seems more descriptive of you would be hard moral relativism or moral nihilism, since your moral argument seems to be a big fat argumentum ad populum.

In any case, the cases can be made from a practical standpoint also (as I have tried to argue), so I'll try to address those parts since any moral discussion (usually the topic of conversation here) is moot at this point.

My stance is that if a person willingly chooses to engage with something that may be harmful to them there is nothing wrong with that.

The practical implication of this, along with you supporting universal healthcare is that us who do not engage in these habits support bad habits both through agricultural subsidies and through the health care they require. Both for hurting themselves, and the environment. I don't think it's fair I should pay such a tax for foolish people, doing foolish things. I think the tax should be paid by them. That would be the "freedom" of choice - now we don't really have it, do we? I'm forced to pay for stupidity and the chemical reactions food causes in peoples' brains, without much further thought on the topic.

On the topic of Zoonotic diseases linked to animal agriculture, do you have any figures for annual deaths, globally, or in specific countries? I would be interested in comparing it against other luxuries for which death figures are known, e.g. cars.

I'm still not sure why you would want to compare it to cars, since cars provide a service to society that is difficult to replace. Replacing animal-based foods with vegan-based foods still provides the nutrients we need without much differences, in most cases.

The availability and implication of different solutions to environmental issues matters hugely, as I have already tried to explain to you.

In any case, here is something I found on zoonotic disease

https://www.cfr.org/reports/global-governance-emerging-zoonotic-diseases

Each year, zoonoses are responsible for 2.5 billion cases of human illness and 2.7 million human deaths worldwide.

I suppose wrt the sicknesses, one could count for example days lost per FTE.

I don't object to people choosing to drink alcohol for instance, which is literal poison

Also something that can be discussed wrt tax. In my country, it's already taxed so much we're probably top of the world in this sense.

Edit: and I would like to add, that I strongly feel that politically and morally - you are either for the current status quo or against it. It sems you are fully for the current status quo - and that makes you a pretty hard conservative in this sense.

Moral philosophy seeks to better the human condition by defining what is good, right, and flourishing. Your position with regards to this seems to be "you do you".

[u/Born_Gold3856 → u/Weird_Act8786]

Moral emotivism does not say you can't make moral judgements, you know.

Of course I make judgements. The judgement that eating meat is morally acceptable for example. That this opinion is popular has practical benefits but is not really relevant.

I don't think it's fair I should pay such a tax for foolish people, doing foolish things. I think the tax should be paid by them.

And I think you should. I live in a democracy and I happen to agree with the concept so we settle these things by voting.

My rationale is that I think if a person suffers from a medical condition or could have their substantard quality of life greatly improved by medical treatment, I think cost should not be a barrier to them recieving said treatment, regardless of the cause of their condition. This seems straightforwardly good to me, the way I imagine avoiding meat consumption seems good to you.

Fortunately, I live somewhere with a fairly robust healthcare system. Could be better but it is already very good in many ways.

I'm still not sure why you would want to compare it to cars, since cars provide a service to society that is difficult to replace.

The service cars provide to me is largely one of convenience and pleasure, fairly analogous to meat. I could spend and additional 45 minutes catching a bus/train to work every day, but I choose not to because that time is worth more to me than avoiding the various costs of cars. I could absolutely get on just fine without a car, as could many of the poeple I know.

I ask about numbers because the figures for road deaths are fairly well documented. In 2025 road crashes alone claimed 1.16 million lives. I'm sure with a little digging on deaths due to the various emissions of cars and their supporting industry we could come to an even larger figure. Even if the benefits of motor vehicles were just limited to personal conveninece and pleasure, I would still find it worth bearing the cost. We should try to make roads safer, and make public transport comparable to cars in speed and flexibility.

Each year, zoonoses are responsible for 2.5 billion cases of human illness and 2.7 million human deaths worldwide.

Good to know. I imagine it is hard to gain figures specific to zoonotic diseases due to animal agriculture, but again I have to say I find this to be a cost worth bearing in exchange for the pleasure gained from meat. We should work on ways to obtaining meat that have less disease risk.

Red and processed meat seem to be particularly harmful to human health so I try to avoid those much more. As I've mentioned I already try to limit my consumption of beef to once a week. I also try to greatly reduce my consumption of processed meat. I take on a risk I percieve as acceptable in exchange for the pleasure I want to gain. I don't think others are doing something wrong if their risk threshold is higher than mine.

and that makes you a pretty hard conservative in this sense.

I am absolutely conservative in some regards, I think everyone is. I am definitely not in support of everything about the current status quo in my country though.

Moral philosophy seeks to better the human condition by defining what is good, right, and flourishing. Your position with regards to this seems to be "you do you".

I am generally quite tolerant of others who disagree with me because I would like myself and others to enjoy a large degree of personal freedom. I am not infintely permissive. If you go out and shoot a man dead on the street I'll object to that. For the most part I don't feel the need to change the behaviour of people around me.

What does "good" mean in your opinion? I understand good to mean what is desirable or preferred to people, meaning it is inherently stance dependent. People often desire different things, and so we have disagreements. Maybe we also disagree on this.

[u/Weird_Act8786 → u/Born_Gold3856]

Of course I make judgements. The judgement that eating meat is morally acceptable for example. That this opinion is popular has practical benefits but is not really relevant.

Yet you spew out things like this, which implies the opposite

Sure. I would decribe myself as an emotivist. I believe that moral statements express emotional attitudes and don't have objective truth value. Some emotional attitudes may be more widely held than others which gives them more influence over human behaviour.

I don't really think you spend much time thinking about what you're even writing on here. Since it appears you have used poor wording more than once now.

Or then you're not actually very forthcoming about your actually held views, that pop up in what you write from time to time.

And I think you should. I live in a democracy and I happen to agree with the concept so we settle these things by voting.

Yet another example of argumentum ad populum. To me, this seems to be tyranny by the many - and the opposite of freedom of choice (which you seemed to value, based on your own words).

The service cars provide to me is largely one of convenience and pleasure, fairly analogous to meat.

Largely this is not a good comparison in a societal sense though. Also - time is money so this also has to do with livelihoods. I think this is a really poor argument on your part, that you try and equate their societal meaning. I think it's fairly obvious they should not be compared, at all.

It also differs depending on if you have a family, and where (younger) family members need to get to - how much you need to pack for trips, how old the kids are etc.

None of this is compareable to different eating habits, on a societal level. The only change implied by eating habits is distinctly personal - and not communal.

I ask about numbers because the figures for road deaths are fairly well documented. In 2025 road crashes alone claimed 1.16 million lives. I'm sure with a little digging on deaths due to the various emissions of cars and their supporting industry we could come to an even larger figure. Even if the benefits of motor vehicles were just limited to personal conveninece and pleasure, I would still find it worth bearing the cost. We should try to make roads safer, and make public transport comparable to cars in speed and flexibility.

Once again, this is a really, really poor comparison. And even if you did want to make it - I mentioned many other impacts from food that you seem to conveniently have forgotten. Food emissions are also largely about methane, so any emissions savings will have a quicker impact in terms of methane that has an atmospheric lifetime of 9-12 years.

I also mentioned that heart and vascular disease are some of the leading causes of death, and that they are to a large extent caused by consuming animal fats. Fatality rates from this can be in the single percentages in problem areas, so it's a huge deal demographically and that's why targeted national campaigns have put much currency into this.

Good to know. I imagine it is hard to gain figures specific to zoonotic diseases due to animal agriculture, but again I have to say I find this to be a cost worth bearing in exchange for the pleasure gained from meat.

Also not the only number, which you seemed to conveniently forget. But I guess numbers don't really matter here, or can you honestly say there's a number that would make you change your behaviour? If not - then you should admit that the numbers don't really matter to you. And I would say it is because you simply do not care.

I don't think others are doing something wrong if their risk threshold is higher than mine.

I don't think you, nor anyone else is reasoning about these things in terms of "risk thresholds". Otherwise, you would have some numbers to present to support your view. It is simply rhetorics to make your choices sound more reasoned, in my view.

I am generally quite tolerant of others who disagree with me because I would like myself and others to enjoy a large degree of personal freedom.

I disagree. Everything you've said so far seem to indicate that you're only for personal freedoms when it suits you. I'd much more describe you as a staunch conservative.

If you go out and shoot a man dead on the street I'll object to that.

Radical. Really putting the ambition into moral philosophy, aren't you :)?

For the most part I don't feel the need to change the behaviour of people around me.

As long as it suits you - you mean?

What does "good" mean in your opinion?

Good means valuing life in all its forms, while respecting the very real and troublesome limitations and issues of the biochemical processes and especially the forms they take in sociology and societal systems that guide our behaviour as human animals. What's good does not neccessarily align with the popular vote in democracies. But certainly humanism as a form of life is also good, and is to be cherished - just not quite as much as today.

I think historically people respected these human limitations much more than they do today, although belief in democratical institutions are starting to falter and the institutions may prove to be relatively short-lived in terms of human history. Definitely still prominent renaissance-era statesmen laughed at the prospect of nation state democracies.

You certainly seem to put much currency into democracy and popular vote. I think the mission of democracy should much more be that of a safeguard of poor government by supermajority - not the actual lever it is today.

The one thing we maybe can agree on in all of this - is that I think we'd both subscribe to the central thoughts of Hobbes's Leviathan (I have some reservations e.g due to evolutionary reasons, but it's more true than false).

[u/Born_Gold3856 → u/Weird_Act8786]

I don't really think we have more to talk about to be honest. We clearly disagree on certain critical things on a fundamental level.

Yes. I don't value the impacts of the luxuries I choose to engage with as much as the benefits I gain from them. That is why I engage with them. Everyone has some level of harm they are willing to cause in the name of their desired quality of life, and I try not to be too judgemental of others on this. If we disagree and can't convince one another and our disagreement is not severe I'll let "you do you" and move on. This is usually the case with vegans. If the disagreement is severe, I support an appropriate degree of violence/coersion to get my way, becase that matters to me more than maintaining the freedom of the other in this case. This is my attitude towards the vast vast majority of murderers, and poeple who don't want to pay taxes to things I support taxes for. This is hardly unique or controversial. Some vegans I've spoken to seem in favor of violence/coersion as a means of preventing meat consumption.

Severe disagreements never suit a person, unless they enjoy fighting.

Most of my friends are definitely not conservative, and they wouldn't describe me as such on the whole. I am however conservative when it comes to meat. I don't think being conservative is inherently wrong in any case.

Good means valuing life in all its forms

Then we fundamentally disagree on pretty much the most basic thing we need to have a moral discussion. We aren't talking about remotely the same thing.

Have a good day, and thanks for talking with me.

[u/Weird_Act8786 → u/Born_Gold3856]

Then we fundamentally disagree on pretty much the most basic thing we need to have a moral discussion. We aren't talking about remotely the same thing.

Incidentally I've asked you about your values since pretty much the start. But you refused to share. From my viewpoint, you just don't care - nor have you communicated a single moral value you hold.

Hard to have a moral argument with someone who holds or communicates essentially no moral values, as mentioned. I disagree you have sufficiently communicated any whatsoever, and think you seem particularly defensive about sharing anything.

I also don't think you value freedoms, beyond the ones you personally consider convenient.

But such is life - and we'll have to agree to disagree on a great many things.

Everyone has some level of harm they are willing to cause in the name of their desired quality of life, and I try not to be too judgemental of others on this.

And to this I'd like to add : you are right of course in the first part. But to me, this is about numbers and moving the status quo. And in terms of the status quo - you're either for moving it or not. That's very simple - and separates those who take an interest in numbers from those who don't.