I think its pretty healthy to always check your assumptions. Some things that are mainstream are actually pretty crazy, but taken as normal because we're used to them. For instance, GDP is a pretty crazy way to measure economic health.

Fundamentally, there is no right or wrong and there are any number of ways you can morally frame something. Usually "things that benefit me and those close to me" are good, "things that hinder me and those close to me" are bad. But at the end of the day it is all subjective, be it on an individual, family, societal, or global level.

You make a good point about killing for food. I'm against killing animals for food and would rather we switch to lab grown meat. It's not fair to the animals that were created plump and killed unnaturally for the sake of eating. If it's a survival situation, that's different, you do what you can to survive. However, modern society is beyond simple survival, we have the resources and means to eliminate animal meat.

But then it begs the question "what about plants? They're alive right?" Also "what about lab meat? Even though they're not a full animal, it's still living matter."

To both those arguments, I'd say, yes, it's still not fair to those lifeforms, however it is much more humane to kill lifeforms without a brain, and that only exist to reproduce. Animals have emotions that we can understand. Fear, joy, and content. They are intelligent. Plants and lab meat are not.

Well the vegans have a few critical issues with their logic.

The average vegan diet actually kills more animals due to pesticides, monocrop agriculture, soil quality degradation, etc etc than that of that of an omnivorous diet. But nobody cares about this because who cares that a couple trillion bugs, beetles, spiders, worms etc died when a couple million cute fluffy little animals died. If it was about saving life then they could do more by not getting a smartphone u know how many human child slaves died to make this thing?

The environmental impact is a mute point because we physically do not globally have enough existing farmland that can support the crops required to produce enough protein sustainably, eg u can farm cattle on a million acres of half desert good luck growing crops their.

Then their the whole evolution argument. We beat every single animal in the African planes not because we where smarter fasted stronger better but because more calories = bigger brain = smarter, we got said additional calories because we discovered 2 things. Smack bone with rock get marrow. 2 put meat in fire more calories. We literally won evolution because we can eat meat more efficiently than other animals could.

Then their is the whole consent thing. Bees can up a leave a hive at any point they want, they do not because they pay honey taxes to the smart monkeys who in exchange offer absolute protection. Bees consented to us eating their honey therefore honey is vegan.

Then u get to the point where u realise evolutionarily most of the species we eat we artificially created and protected putting them in the most successfull evolutionary niche in the history of our planet. That being human support class ie food. Are we using them or are they using us? It looks like a symbiotic relationship to me. Whats the difference between this and the bacteria in my gut cos i sure as shit didnt ask my shit if it consented to be my literal fucking shit.

And finally the pro lifer chicken argument. Why cant u kill a non fertilised chicken egg but u can kill a fertilised human egg? Is it the consent of the eggs creator thats required? Chickens dont exist naturally they are an artificial species that we created so i guess if we can consent to eat a chickens egg on behalf of the chicken really depends on what came first the chicken or the egg?