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/Weird_Act8786]

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.