> So, when I hear you saying that you are motivated by pure moral reasons, but not stating those reasons, I can't help but think "this guy is lying to himself", sorry.
???
I didn't say more about these things because I felt my comment was long enough already on a tangent to the HN submission itself, and that I'd made the intended point.
Not that I owe you or anyone else any convincing that I'm not delusional, but since you appear to be asking, this will both try to answer you and also illustrate why I didn't bloat my previous comment.
I am striving to keep to an acceptable minimum the harm I cause to other sentient creatures. My moral framework includes the following:
1. I reject speciesism^.
2. I take as axiomatic there is no "elimination" of harm to other creatures - no existence as a human has zero external harm.
3. I observe that accounting within any sufficiently complicated system, whether economic, physical, or moral, admits no entirely black and white disposition.
4. I discard as a largely useless question whether or not it is "natural" for humans to consume animal products.
5. I don't think "what our ancestors did" justifies what we should or shouldn't do today in our presently-evolved state.
Consistent with these ideas, I conclude veganism minimizes the harm I cause to other sentient creatures subject to the constraints that I do not make it impossible for myself to live among other people in a western society, and I do not degrade my health. #2 implies one can always strive further toward an asymptote of zero. At some point, one has to decide for themselves if they've done "enough". #3 implies reasonable people will not always agree as to whether a specific action or choice is reducing harm. For example, you speak of going somewhere else and not asking for "a vegetarian alternative" because "it doesn't matter." I contend that it very well could matter. If restaurants offer more vegan options because people ask for them, patrons potentially reduce the amount of animal products they consume, or potentially convince fellow diners that not consuming animal products doesn't preclude the convenience and pleasure of shared meals eaten at restaurants.
A choice of veganism is analogous to a choice of voting in a democracy. Your single vote is probably not going to make the difference in an election, but everybody thinking their votes matter is how we achieve collective action that unequivocally matters.
I don't really respect the choice of vegetarianism being observed wholly out religious obligations, but I appreciate that there are so many vegetarians who, regardless of their motivations, reduce their harm and make it more economically viable for me to live more comfortably in a manner consistent with my principles.
Many people who don't answer "why" when asked about their vegetarianism do so because they don't want to invite mockery or debate. I know people like this, and having experienced this kind of mockery, I understand it. Avoiding mockery or challenges to justify one's postions doesn't equate to a lack of convictions. Sure, someone could be doing it because it "sets them apart" and then they don't answer because they don't want to get called out on this stupidity. But why is that the correct default assumption in the absence of a fulsome answer? As for me, if you sincerely ask me "why" to my face, I'll certainly tell you and not play coy.
^
[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-animal/
[2] https://www.jstor.org/stable/26165687