Home / J. Practicality, economy and society / Part IND
"It's hard; I don't have time."
initial difficulty isn't impossibility, and inconvenience doesn't justify harm. Changing habits takes effort at the start, like learning anything new. But everyday vegan food can be as quick as food with meat: rice, frozen beans, roasted vegetables, pasta with sauce. And the time it takes to learn a few recipes is small next to the lives of those who stop being killed.
Short answer
Changing takes effort at first, like any learning, but then it gets easy. Everyday vegan food can be as quick as food with meat: rice, beans cooked in bulk and frozen, roasted vegetables, pasta with sauce, sandwiches. And the change can be gradual, one meal at a time. The inconvenience of learning a few recipes doesn't outweigh an animal's life.
For children
Learning to ride a bike is hard at first, but then it gets easy. Changing what you eat is like that too. At first you need to learn new recipes, but soon it becomes normal. And lots of vegan foods are quick: rice, beans, pasta with tomato sauce, fruit.
"If vegan food could be as quick as what you make today, what else would stop you changing?"
Como pode aparecer
"I work all day."
"I can't cook."
"It's too hard."
"Who has time to make vegan food?"
"Dietary transition imposes costs in time and learning."
"Nobody's perfect; I do what I can." (which is E6)
The strongest version
"I work all day. I can't cook."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1Changing eating habits takes time, information and effort.
- P2Many people have little time and many responsibilities.
- P3It isn't reasonable to demand hard changes of people who are already overloaded.
- CSo the person has no obligation to become vegan.
P1 and P2 are true. P3 has a point: demands should take real conditions into account. The problem lies in the conclusion: the difficulty is mostly at the start, and the change can be gradual.
The argument is valid as a request for understanding. It fails as a permanent justification.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument treats an initial difficulty as permanent:
Stage Difficulty First weeks Greater: learning recipes, changing shopping, discovering options After a few months Smaller: the routine adjusts Long term Similar to any diet - b
Where the argument breaks
1. The difficulty is mostly at the start.
Like any new habit, vegan eating gets easier with time.
2. Vegan food can be quick.
Many simple everyday dishes are already vegan or can be adapted with little effort.
3. The change can be gradual.
Starting with a few meals a week and building up reduces the difficulty.
4. Inconvenience doesn't justify harm.
The trouble of learning something new doesn't outweigh an animal's life.
5. Many people with little time make the change.
Workers, parents, students and people on low incomes become vegan every day.
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note Brazil's Ministry of Health, *Dietary Guidelines for the Brazilian Population* (2014, in Portuguese) Recommends unprocessed and minimally processed foods, mainly of plant origin, and gives practical advice for cooking with little time Also used in G14 Faunalytics, study of current and former vegetarians and vegans 13% of those who quit cited inconvenience Shows the difficulty is real for some, and that practical support matters - d
The strongest counter-reply: some people really can't
The most serious version points out that some people work exhausting hours, care for others and have nowhere to cook, and that demanding hard changes of them is unfair.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
That justifies exceptions and one's own pace.
Veganism is "as far as is possible and practicable" (D3).
It doesn't apply to most people.
Those who use the argument can usually make at least some changes.
It calls for support, not giving up.
Simple recipes and ready-made options help.
- f
Back to the moral question
The difficulty is real, and it deserves understanding. But it doesn't answer the moral question: does the trouble of changing justify continuing to pay for animals to be killed? For most people, the answer involves starting, even if slowly.
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
False dichotomy
Epistemological
Does the evidence support it?
Overestimating the difficulty
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
Inconvenience as justification
Biases
Present bias
Immediate effort weighs more than future benefit
General literature on temporal discounting
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "if changing is hard, there's no obligation to change".
If it applied to…Quitting smokingTap to see
There'd be no reason to try
No one concludes this
If it applied to…Learning to drive safelyTap to see
It would be optional
No one concludes this
If it applied to…No longer eating animalsTap to see
It would be optional
The same error
Contradictions
Work, technology, new habits.
Without noticing.
Which shows time isn't the only factor.
What the argument gets right
What is true
Lack of time is real for many people, and changing eating habits takes effort. Overloaded people deserve understanding, not judgment, and the vegan movement should offer simple, practical paths.
But
But the difficulty is greatest at the start, and the change can be gradual. With a few recipes and a new routine, vegan food becomes as practical as any other.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after