Home / E. Relativism, freedom and evasions / Part DIR
"I know it's wrong, but I won't change."
this is the most honest answer in the catalog, and therefore the most important. It concedes the moral point and refuses the consequence. There's no argument to refute: the person already agrees. What remains is the gap between knowing and doing, which philosophy calls akrasia, or weakness of will. The conversation doesn't end here; it changes in nature: it stops being about whether it's wrong and becomes about how to change.
Root chapter: one of the three roots where conversations end, along with A10 and J11
Short answer
Thank you for your honesty: you already agree with the most important part. The gap between knowing and doing is human, and it happens to almost everyone on some subject. But it doesn't have to be permanent. You don't need to change everything at once: you can start with one meal, one day a week, one product. What makes the change hardest? Maybe we can work that out together.
For children
Sometimes we know something isn't nice, but we keep doing it because it's hard to stop, like biting our nails or leaving our room messy. Knowing it's wrong is already an important step! The next step is to look for help and change little by little, until it gets easier.
"If you already know it's wrong, what would make the change easier for you?"
Como pode aparecer
"You're right, but I like it too much."
"Deep down I know."
"I'll stop someday."
"I don't have the willpower."
"I'm a self-confessed hypocrite."
"I recognize the moral reason, but I don't act on it."
"Meat tastes good." (which is J11)
The strongest version
"You're right, but I like it too much. Deep down I know. I'll stop someday."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1I recognize that eating animals causes harm I can't justify.
- P2Changing deep habits is hard, and I don't have enough motivation right now.
- P3No one lives up to all of their values.
- CSo I keep eating animals, without pretending it's right.
The strong version has a rare virtue: it's honest. It doesn't invent justifications. The problem lies in the conclusion: recognizing that something is wrong and carrying on doesn't make the practice acceptable, only transparent.
The argument isn't valid as a justification: the premises explain the behavior but don't justify it. It is, in fact, a confession.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument justifies nothing; it separates two things:
What the person admits What the person refuses Eating animals causes unjustified harm Changing their own behavior The opposing arguments are better Acting on them This is what Aristotle called akrasia: acting against one's own best judgment.
- b
Where the argument breaks
1. Explaining isn't justifying.
The difficulty of changing explains why the person carries on, but doesn't make what they do acceptable. For the animal, the honesty of whoever eats them changes nothing.
2. The gap between knowing and doing is common.
Even ethics specialists, most of whom consider eating mammal meat morally bad, eat meat almost as much as other professors. This shows the problem isn't one of argument, but of practice (E11).
3. Dissonance demands a way out.
Psychology shows that conflict between values and behavior creates discomfort, and that people tend to resolve it in two ways: by changing the behavior or by distorting the belief. Whoever admits the wrong is at the point where the first way out is still open.
4. "Someday" rarely comes without a plan.
Changes postponed without a date tend to be postponed forever. A small, concrete step is worth more than a big, vague intention.
5. This is the root where the conversation changes in nature.
There's nothing left to refute. What helps now is practical support: recipes, substitutions, company, small goals.
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note Schwitzgebel, *The Moral Lives of Ethicists* About 60% of ethics specialists see eating mammal meat as morally bad, but eat meat almost as much as other professors The gap between knowing and doing Benningstad and Kunst, 2020 A review of how people dissociate meat from its animal origin to reduce discomfort Shows one of the ways out of dissonance Aristotle, *Nicomachean Ethics*, book VII Discusses akrasia, acting against one's own best judgment Full text on Project Gutenberg; there akrasia is translated as "incontinence" - d
The strongest counter-reply: honesty is already a value
The most serious version says admitting the contradiction is more dignified than inventing justifications, and that no one should be criticized for being honest about their own failings.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
It's right about honesty.
Admitting is better than rationalizing, and deserves recognition.
But honesty is a beginning, not an end.
Recognizing a wrong and keeping it up indefinitely is different from recognizing it and working to change.
The best response is to help.
Those who defend animals should welcome this honesty and offer paths forward, not guilt.
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
Explanation taken as justification
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
Akrasia
Indefinite postponement
Biases
Cognitive dissonance
The discomfort is tolerated or eased without changing the practice
Present bias
Immediate pleasure weighs more than a future commitment
General literature on temporal discounting
Sunk cost and effort justification
Changing would mean admitting that lifelong habits were wrong
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "admitting something is wrong is enough, even if I carry on".
If it applied to…Drink-drivingTap to see
Admitting it's wrong would be enough
No one accepts this
If it applied to…Betraying someone's trustTap to see
Frankness would solve the problem
No one accepts this
If it applied to…A polluting companyTap to see
Acknowledging the harm would exempt it from fixing it
No one accepts this
Contradictions
This is the contradiction in its most open form.
Most people have already changed something they thought impossible.
"I know it's wrong, but I won't stop" satisfies no victim.
What the argument gets right
What is true
The honesty is real and valuable. Whoever says "I know it's wrong" has already taken the hardest step intellectually, and deserves respect for not hiding behind justifications. The difficulty of changing is real too: eating habits are tied to affection, routine and identity.
But
That's why this is the root where the conversation stops being a debate and becomes an invitation. There's no argument left to win, only a change to build, ideally together and one step at a time.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after