system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
I believe making moral acts "cool" rather than explaining why they're "good" is the optimal way to increase total morality. CMV.

By this, I refer to things like shopping at a thrift shop (an incredibly conscious way to recycle and lightly withdraw support from a few nefarious companies -- but people do it because Macklemore does it, because look, the '50s, etc.), vegetarianism (a view I hold as firmly moral -- no need to agree -- but whose adoption is often done because it's a young, hip way to eat ("Have you tried that new vegan place?"), and not for environmental or moral reasons), biking (far better for the environment than cars, but look at the culture that's sprung up around having an old or a silly bike) and protesting, in some cases (namely, that for a time in America it was more "cool" than "important" that you were joining Occupy -- and though legitimacy may have suffered, it was hard to argue with the numbers, even though I do believe most of the participants saw their efforts as, at best, personal rebellion, rather than the dire collective action problem it was and indeed is). Even slacktivist territory like LIVESTRONG bracelets, in which support for an important medical battle is shown through only an article of clothing, needs an aesthetic inroad ("bands are cool!"; "my friends have those bands, I want one too") and not a stance ("I will do everything in my power to battle cancer").

All of this amounts to making medicine tasty. 

And while I'd rather live in a world in which I could discuss with you that riding your bike to work is more environmentally-conscious, that in my view you're quasi-compelled to do it given the state of affairs, etc., it seems both a. easier and b. more effective to start a Take Your Bike To Work Day in Brooklyn.

It may not even be that people are, in aggregate, too stupid to take in the arguments (though I do think that's probably the case). It may just be that you're way more prone to do what your friends do than what's right (yes, my own definition of right; let's set it aside for now), and so it's in my best interests to find the leader of your friend group, convince *her*, and watch the effect metabolize and spread.

CMV.
gpt
The problem with your view is that when you consider "morality", a person who acts morally *must* be acting that way because they understand why the action is "good". Doing something "morally correct" because it is *cool* isn't acting morally after all.

Even if one is making the world a better place, he is not acting morally unless he is actually *intending* to act morally. It's not good enough to be "accidentally moral". Being moral accidentally is just about as good as lacking morality totally.