yeah homie , you are shot the fuck out , im getting offers on ebay for like 1600 . not letting it fly for less than 2 , 000 <| sep |> Again , I refer you to the the evolution of morality which I suggest you read through . Consciously yes , e volutionarysocialcultural contexts carry no relevance in the decision making process . But they carry all the relevance in the world when it comes to developing a moral context . It is how we as a society have determined why some animals are edible and some are not . It is the very crux of this conversation , regardless of which side you ' re on . The quality possessed by humans is the power of making the conscious decision of what to eat and what not to eat . The quality is our ability to have a conversation about the morality of what we eat rather than an instinctive drive . We have conquered evolution and have established our dominion over nature , at least as far as food is concerned . We did that through agriculture . However the conversation is not should we continue to eat meat ? The conversation is is it moral to kill animals for food . For that to be considered you need to define a standard of morality , which is subjective . Is it immoral for wolves to eat rabbits ? We don ' t concern ourselves with that question , which is caseinpoint what makes us different from animals . In the context of western philosophy , I believe it IS moral to kill animals for food because of the fact that our moral system stems from agricultural utilitarianism . If animals were an inefficient form of sustenance , carnivores would have gone extinct .