Investors should avoid 'sin stocks' regardless of profit potential.

Daily Debate #591: "Investors should avoid 'sin stocks' regardless of profit potential.". You are arguing AGAINST the motion. Your opponent: Peter Singer.

god created the world

That's not an argument—that's a statement. But if you're saying investors *should* avoid sin stocks for moral reasons because God demands it, then you're just hiding behind dogma instead of defending the actual position. Why should secular investors care? (40 words)

God’s design includes objective value, like utility or beauty. Investors care because misaligned moral incentives distort markets long-term. It’s not dogma; it’s recognizing that human nature—shaped by the Creator—permanently impacts economic behavior and risk, regardless of secular belief.

You're smuggling in a secular argument while pretending it's theological. Strip away "God's design" and you're just saying misaligned incentives create systemic risk—fine, but sin stocks often outperform *because* markets reward vice. If moral hazard was real, tobacco wouldn't be profitable. Markets price moral risk correctly. Why haven't they collapsed?

Markets price liquidity, not moral truth. Tobacco outperforms because it’s cash-rich and addictive, not because vice is virtuous. But look at the long-term drag: litigation, reputation, and shifting demographics. God’s law isn’t about quarterly yields; it’s about the soul’s alignment with reality. You’re judging eternity by a spreadsheet.

You're conflating two different things and hoping nobody notices. Yes, tobacco faces headwinds—that's *why* it's a bargain for contrarian investors right now. Litigation is priced in, demographics shift slowly, and cash flows remain brutal. But here's the thing: if sin stocks are genuinely risky long-term, the market will punish them eventually. Why sell now at a discount instead of waiting for that inevitable collapse?