lol. Before you entered the conversation my only point was that perhaps there are methods of procuring the meat which can be morally frowned upon but the act of simply eating the meat cannot be taken into moral consideration when you look at morality as subjective and individually specific.

When we look at morality as a man made concept we can conclude that there are inherent flaws to the ideals we view as philosophy, hence the saying that in philosophy there is no "right and wrong" as we still live in a society and I am having a conversation pertaining to the very idea of right and wrong then i must submit to some criteria if we are to having a working scale as to what consists of moral and immoral.

that being said, if we separate the two, philosophy and the natural order of the universe, we can come to two very compelling conclusions. the first, being that we as human beings have placed a quantifiable and measurable value to what is considered right and wrong we as a society dictate those values and the minority ideals are what we view as "wrong" or "taboo" or "immoral" where the more generally accepted idea is the one we view as "moral" or "right" for this reason the age of consent varies country to country. In the united states and various other countries it is considered quite offensive to have sexual intercourse with a child who is under the age of 13, where in some indigenous tribes this is viewed as quite normal, an example of the masses dictating what is right and what is wrong. If we look at morality as something which is defined as what the cultural standard is for the judging time period then we can rightfully assume that eating meat is completely just and morally acceptable, as a majority of the population deems it so. The vegetarian route (being the minority) would most assuredly be the "wrong" way of thinking. if we look at morality in these terms of course.

the second conclusion we can arrive at is the idea that we as human beings possess such an ego that we believe we have more knowledge and common sense than thousands of years of evolution? because with our limited time on this planet, we have decimated the oceans, ruined the atmosphere, changed climates, made hundreds of animals extinct, and are currently facing rapidly melting ice caps, we still believe that we have the authority to determine whether or not nature got it right? there is a balance on this planet that has not come through some thoughtless decision or whimsical hoopla it was from thousands of years of careful evolution. To place any moral or ethical notion to those events is equal to saying that a shooting star has a destination, or that time is thinking about time, or that water chose to be water. these are events that do not happen because someone thought it should or because it was right or wrong for it to happen, they happen simply because THEY MUST. predators serve their purpose, just as scavengers, just as herbivores, just as everything else on the planet. the predator eats the pray, the pray is digested and the waste provides nutrients for the plants, which the herbivores eat, which then does something else which then does something else so on so forth. your argument presupposes that animals think about their decisions in terms of right and wrong. which would presuppose that bacteria purposely make you sick out of malice and spite. when a lion is hungry it eats, when a dog is thirsty it drinks, when a whale wants to mate it mates, there is nothing more than simple hardwired mechanics taking place here. IT IS NOT IMMORAL FOR ANIMALS TO EAT OTHER ANIMALS, IF TOMORROW ANIMALS STOPPED EATING OTHER ANIMALS A VARIETY OF SPECIES WOULD GO EXTINCT, ANOTHER VARIETY WOULD OVER POPULATE, AND A HUGE SERIES OF PROBLEMS WOULD TAKE PLACE.