I ought to be able to make a low-effort glance into the things I eat and pick a diet that closely matches my intuitions without sacrificing health, happiness, or undue money
I’m not sure what sense of “ought” you’re using there, but that seems like you’re expecting an implausibly cooperative universe. Your ethical intuitions might be in line with what you need for health, but they are only loosely affected by health considerations.
There’s some pull towards ethics leading towards diets which are livable for a high proportion of people who follow them, but that’s hardly a guarantee.
Warning: I eat meat, so this might be motivated reasoning. On the other hand, the health claims for vegetarianism also seem to me like motivated reasoning.
“Ought” meaning that I think it’s highly unlikely that these calculations come out in such a close race that I don’t have clear choices despite using low powered analysis. It might, but like, if the mussels thing looks very likely true, that for example would be a big differentiator over certain other products. Also, there is some variation between brain size and food value. If something IS a close call, there are lots of things that almost certainly are not. That’s what I mean by “ought”
One person does not have a large effect on market; I suspect that most vegetarians are being unreal with themselves about the impact of their choices. You can point out a lot of these sorts of quirks about deliberate vegetarians (health claims you mentioned), which may be a sign that there is lots of motivated reasoning going on in that group.
I pretty much just want to make choices more consistent with my ethics or morals or whatever, and desire to do that with minimum effort.
I’m not sure what sense of “ought” you’re using there, but that seems like you’re expecting an implausibly cooperative universe. Your ethical intuitions might be in line with what you need for health, but they are only loosely affected by health considerations.
There’s some pull towards ethics leading towards diets which are livable for a high proportion of people who follow them, but that’s hardly a guarantee.
Warning: I eat meat, so this might be motivated reasoning. On the other hand, the health claims for vegetarianism also seem to me like motivated reasoning.
“Ought” meaning that I think it’s highly unlikely that these calculations come out in such a close race that I don’t have clear choices despite using low powered analysis. It might, but like, if the mussels thing looks very likely true, that for example would be a big differentiator over certain other products. Also, there is some variation between brain size and food value. If something IS a close call, there are lots of things that almost certainly are not. That’s what I mean by “ought”
One person does not have a large effect on market; I suspect that most vegetarians are being unreal with themselves about the impact of their choices. You can point out a lot of these sorts of quirks about deliberate vegetarians (health claims you mentioned), which may be a sign that there is lots of motivated reasoning going on in that group.
I pretty much just want to make choices more consistent with my ethics or morals or whatever, and desire to do that with minimum effort.