'Amoral' here means 'outside the sphere at which moral judgments apply'. 

Occasionally you hear of or read about someone overconfident about his ability to judge what is right or wrong. Since eating meat involves killing, it seems that its wickedness is unquestionable. Therefore there is no room for discussions or dialogues. It is all a matter of the more 'moraly superior' vegetarian to issue preachy monologues and curses to the immoral zombies who eat dead flesh.

The horse: Animals have a right to live

The lion: Yep.

The horse: Therefore we should never kill them.

The lion: Nope!

It is not immediately clear why the conclusion does not immediately follow from the premise. But let me use an example: round worms have a right to live. Good! But does this mean men should not deworm themselves, since de-worming kills them? Does the rights of an animal to leave overrides your circumstances driven need to kill them? Or should we say round worms, flees, ticks, jiggers etc have no right to live? Why should this right to live apply for some animals and not others? The only tenable conclusion is that the conclusion does not follow from the premise. 

The right for a round worm to live means that it has a right to difend itself against efforts of a man to de-worm himself! It has the right to develop resistance to drugs. This right is neither granted for nor defended by a human! It has this right whether a man likes it or not, acknowledge it, or not, difend it or not. Just as animals don't need to help humans difend their rights, humans don't need to help animals difend their rights. A human has a right to live, but a lion also has a right to have one for a lunch! You see?

Animals have the same rights as humans

The preachy vegetarian has asurped the duty of animal's spokesman! If you want to know what the rights of animals are, 'ask the vegetarian'! There is no question of whether the animal itself has a different view. No question of whether a chicken may prefer to be swiftly killed by a human rather than sucked blood slowly by a monguos. No, 'the vegetarian knows better'. Yes, better than chicken itself! Then according to the vegetarian, it is cruel for a human to swiftly kill a chicken but it is ok for jackal  to chew it from legs upwards!

The vegetarian has created stupid straw men and then knocked them down. He lists supposed 'arguments by meat eaters', arguments that nobody have actually made them! One of them is that 'human should eat animals because he is superior to them'. Humans are also eaten by crocodiles, lions and pythons. Meat eaters don't regard this as 'wickedness from lions' against a supposedly superior being. Having a right to eat another living thing has nothing to do with 'superiority' otherwise the most superior animals would not be humans but snakes,  lions, hyenas, dogs, etc.

This 'equality' between humans and animals is maintained only as long as it favours the vegetarian. The animal is briefly 'promoted' into a human and then immediately 'demoted' back! If he doesn't do that, then his argument that 'killing an animal is just like killing a human' turns on its own head! If animals are just like humans, why is this 'likeness' only applicable to the human prey and not the predators? If 'we are just the same as animals', why is it ok for a hyena to eat meat but not so to a man?

It turns out to be yet another human 'superiority complex' comming in the form of moral superiority to animals! It suck to say we are on the same par with dogs, worms, hyenas, warthogs etc! We think we are closer to God than animals. So we should be far holier! But the only way of saying that a man has same rights as animals is to maintain that man too is not forbidden to eat other animals. So we are all the same! There is no reason to exempt carnivores in this 'sameness'. With that, man becomes as loving as a cat, and as innocent! We must not only consider 'same rights' with animals only when it makes men guilty and ignore it/ deny it when it makes man innocent. This is a one sided deal!

Overpopulation 

What if there were no carnivores such as lions? Then herbivores would become zillions and graze the land bare. So you can agree that killing the herbivorous is good for the ecosystem. However, the vegetarian's argument will be inconsistent! Putting it togegher, it says: 'it is good to kill herbivores but it is bad for a man to kill them because they have a right to live!!' The 'right to live' is only called into question when a man hunt one or two, all while at the back of mind, he maintains that thaosands of them, including the one hunted by the man, should be killed by the lions, cheetahs, leopards etc. Make sense? If something is good for nature, e.g. killing some herbivores, it cannot also be bad for a human to contribute to doing this necessary thing!

The horse: so are you saying that it is ok for men to kill other men to reduce population.

The lion: nope! I am saying it is not a sin for a lion or a crocodile to eat some men! 

It is amoral for one species to eat another. On the contrary, this is good for the ecosystem. Foodchain was meant to be there. But people have concluded that animals are amoral when infact it is only relative. A dog has no human morals, but they have their own morals. A human is amoral from the point of view of a dog, and vice-versa is the same. According to a dog, it is not a sin to queue for sex but it is a sin to snarch a bone from another dog! According to chicken, it is not a sin to eat another one while still alife, but we are espected to beleive that 'they feel bad when one of them is eaten by a human'! But accirding to chicken, it is a sin not to warn others of a comming eagle. So when a cow is killed by a human, it sees no difference from you when a lion kills a human. According to the cow, you are forgivable because you have no morals (the cow's). You are innocent and 'less evolved'. But the vegeterian argument universalizes human ethics, rights etc. It is yet another antropocentrism.

The vegetarian says that human should stop keeping animals. Then he should grow plants like shit. This, he thinks, will provide for human needs for the land that could be used for animals is now available for farming! The vegeterian assumes that when the human stops rearing cattle, they stop eating, when infact they will begine eating a far more land as they will become overpopulated! The vegeterian's argument is totally stupid!! Remember that these animals are now like humans. They 'should not be killed' so their population will now grow like human. Since they are also 'vegetarian', they compete with man over grazing land. You see, the vegeterian's argument that without meat, we have enough land to grow food is flawed! It doesn't take into consideration the land for the livestock themselves . If livestock must live, then we don't have enough land for a worldwide vegetarianism!

We can say we take the livestock to game reserves. But what sense does this make? Saying: cattles should be killed by lions because, having the right to live, they should not be killed by humans? Can you save the life of your child from a soldier by throwing himto a python? Some say that these animals would not be there if human did not keep them! Make sense? Saying livestock should have extincted thaosands of years ago because they have a right to live so they may not be killed by humans?

Apartheid 

In some many areas, it is impossible to grow plants edible by humans. Only grass grow. So the only way to survive is to eat meat and drink blood! If the vegetarian argument were tenable, it should make universal sense since morals are universal. A person in semi arid areas grew up knowing that one should not shun meat because at times it is the only available food. So how can you argue to this person that eating meat is immoral? But argument that 'this is immoral' should be understood by all men regardless of their circumstances. Morality should be universal and apeal to all consciences. There are no things right for one group and wrong for another group. Such laws are called 'apartheid'. In this case, it is very problematic. The vegeterian should keep calling meat eaters 'zombies' while also some are recognized as to be entitled to eat meat and others are not! This creats a notion that some humans are animal-like and it is not their fault when they behave like animals, e.g. by eating other animals.

No! What is right or wrong should apply equally to all people. But since it is impossible for some people to live without meat, it cannot be wrong to eat meat for every other human! Granted, it may not be advisable but it is amoral! In this sense we all have equal moral standard. Then you see that man is as responsible as an animal when it comes to what to eat. He too is driven by circumstances.

 livestock prefers man

Go everywhere and you will find that to escape dangerous night predators, chicken goes to human houses at night. It is not that they don't know human too is a predator. They know!! Human is just better! It is a choice of which is better between two insipid options, a kind of choosing we should learn to do and understand! Nature does not always give 'the best option'. It is the same for all livestock. The cat followed the man to feed on the mice in his stores. The goats followed the man to protect him from leopards by building a fence for them etc. Look at sheep!! They follow the man, not the vice-versa!!! Man goes ahead and the sheep comes behind. This is because a man, standing tall, can see distant place and see predators from far and also see green grass from far!  Protecting them from even more dangerous predetors etc may be, according to them, worth the sacrifice of a man eating two to 3 of them once in a while. So how can a vegetarian talk of 'animal rights' that overrides their rights to choose and then say 'this right to live means that we should throw them to be killed by leopards'. It is very ironical that the vegetarian argument is beginning to sound like the evil one!!

This type of relationship is called 'symbiosis' and is universal. Infact the cells of your body are in a symbiotic relationship. When you work, you kill some of the cells of your body. That is to say some other cells kills other cells in your body!! However, the cells of say your skin, chose you rather than living alone like bacteria, even though you would kill some of them when you hold something etc! It is a question of whether it is worth the sacrifice. Your body begines to kill you slowly in what we perceive as 'aging' in order to prevent another killer (cancer) from killing you too quickly! So yes, biological organisms are fond of making sacrifices, sometimes choosing to be killed in one way rather than the other. In a world where we must all die anyway, this is not a big deal at all!

'First Law' Of Jurisprudence 

A basic tenet of justice is to let the wronged to bring the case. If some people complain that there are theifs around and so many people are beeing stolen from, then there is no answerable case if no one is complaining that he himself have been stolen from! In other words you can never take a case to court on behalf of another person. Nobody has the right to go to court and complain that I have been stolen from if I myself is not complaining! There is a reason for this. A complain to a third party is not the only way of settling disputes. The case for children is already problematic. A child has no say, so we believe. So in case someone wrongs a child, we can jail them for a life imprisonment before the child grows up. But we a times get surprised to learn that according to the now grown child, the person did no wrong and should be released!! The child might also have been denied a chance to forgive!!

The vegeterian arguments sees animals as morality unresponsible! They are like children or mentally retarded individuals. It is only the vegetarian who knows the real problems of the animals, not the animals themselves. The vegetarian's approach is terribly patronizing! Then according to the vegetarian, the real problem of the animals is lives!  However it is evident that this is not the case! A cow, for instance, like a cow is only disturbed by immediate threat, not a far into future death. If offered a choice, a cow will chooses a silent, distant death than a constant threat. The major problem of a cow is getting some grass, watter or getting rid of flies buzzing around the nose or eyes. It has no concern with next year harvest, life or anything like that. These, to a cow, is just like pants, neck ties lipstick, a camera etc,  which are, though very important to a man, are worthless to a cow. Take a laptop and he will use it as a toilet!

The vegeterian take is to override the real concern for animals and impose human concerns as though an animal is equivalent to a mentally returded human. It is like, well, 'they need it but they don't know it cause they are less evolved'. So they impose concerns like life assurance, things that are of zero concern to livestock! Nobody has a right to go to court to complain that my neighbour is smocking weed to my nose if such a thing does not concern me, even if inhaling weed can cause cancer to me. No one should patronize me!