[offtop5]

There are downsides to eating Oreos, but we don't need articles which state obvious facts.

Much wrong has been done in this country by telling people their behavior is a moral. As long as you don't hurt me or anyone else do whatever you want, you're free to drink yourself silly every night

[vinay427]

I would argue that benefits have also come from moralizing about certain practices. Consider smoking cigarettes, for instance, which has seen dramatic decreases in use over several decades in the US [1]. I suspect that the large amount of moralizing in schools, on TV and in movies, and other places had something to do with this given that it's still more common (perhaps because it's less taboo and still seen as "cool") in certain European countries [2], not to mention many other places around the world that weren't significantly different from the US some decades ago. This has public health benefits that everyone at least indirectly benefits from, without mentioning the more direct issues such as second-hand smoke or, in the case of alcohol, drunk driving or other crimes exacerbated by its use.

[1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/237908/smoking-rate-hits-new-lo...

[2] https://ourworldindata.org/which-countries-smoke-most

[tjs8rj]

These aren't so obvious facts, and we DO write articles and run campaigns about the harms of junk food and overeating.

None of this is "moralizing", its simply reiterating the harmful effects of behaviors so others can make balanced decisions. Nobody is born aware of the dangers of junk food and alcohol, and they're easy to forget too unless one has personal experience with it (by then the damage is already done).