@Grisaille
“Granted, I have plenty of reasons of my own as to why I consciously choose to eat meat (without guilt), but I think we’re all mature here. I respect those that choose to not eat meat, I believe us omnivores deserve the same.”
Respectfully :>) I am going to have to disagree here; not so much to target you or point fingers as to demonstrate a bit of thinking that non-vegetarians may not be aware of.
You (and many other meat-eaters) no doubt think of your choice of whether or not to eat meat as one having few or no moral consequences. Therefore, you may see it as along the same ethical lines as choosing whether to listen to Bach or Vivaldi, or whether to take a trip to the beach or the mountains. Therefore, you feel that no one has the right to criticize that decision.
However, from my (and other ethical vegetarians) perspective, the choice of whether or not to eat meat can’t be made in such a way, because it is not an ethics-free decision. In order for meat to be eaten, an animal has to be harmed. In the eyes of most philosophers, causing harm is never a neutral act. Now, of course, there are situations where causing harm is ethically justified- but the point is, such justification needs to be made.
Therefore, choosing to eat meat is an act that is open to moral debate. There are no doubt some situations (such as life-or-death survival, or consumption of non-sentient animals) where a strong moral case can be made that eating meat is justified. There are just as clearly other situations (such as consuming endangered species or torturing an animal to death to eat it) where such a case cannot be made. But, the de facto position is that eating animals must be justified and thus exceptions must, in some case, be made, not that it is a morally permissible act that is only sometimes unethical.