One man's "laz[iness]" is another man's efficiency. Think of all the other forms of laziness we have: we don't need to do dishes by hand; the printing press sav

One man's "laz[iness]" is another man's efficiency. Think of all the other forms of laziness we have: we don't need to do dishes by hand; the printing press saves us having to scribble letters by hand; we have machines wash our clothes; cars spare our feet and our time; hydraulic excavators let us avoid shoveling dirt with our hands; and aircraft let us save the weeks we'd otherwise waste aboard ships and in rail cars. Is using any of these things some kind of moral failing? Of course not, and neither is using a food delivery service. People get a lot of value out of delivery apps. If they didn't, they wouldn't use them. You're asking people to forego something valuable on your say-so. How can that be justified? Every technological innovation is opposed by those used to the old ways or who are financially interested in the perpetuation of inefficiencies from which they benefit. This opposition frequently takes on a moral character, as it has in your comment --- if you use the new thing, you're a bad person making an unethical choice. Well, I reject that.