Being that I don't feel a person's choice to eat or not eat animal product resolves to a singular moral/ethical fulcrum, I don't feel I miss "the point." people may have diverse reasons to make any choice. A person may not eat meat simply because they dislike it. This person is not missing the point.
Here's the thing. When we talk about morality, we talk about those things which fall within morality's scope. Humans obviously fall within this scope, and for my reasons stated, so should animals.
I haven't disagreed, nor have I contradicted this.
I disagree that indirect reasons are enough for the moral considerability of animals.
I think actions not reasoning are a greater metric of moral considerability. Besides, I've spelling it out, and the direct cruelty to an animal by my hands is not something I can do. My own internal guidance DOES grant animals moral standing. The difference is that after I realize that I lack the capacity to do it, I do not run to the grocery for the end product.
If a cat is kicked down the road, it is wrong because the cat is harmed, not because it might make other humans nearby upset. The cat itself has direct standing.
I don't disagree. This is not in conflict with anything I've said.
Given then a moral considerability of animals (which is the fundamental issue at hand), the choices we make and how our actions affect animals must be taken into account, if we take their interests to be important.
Hence action. Hence an alteration of my lifestyle.
The reasons you state don't speak to that fundamental issue. In other words, it is poor justification (but don't get me wrong, they are still important for other reasons, nonetheless).
I'd like to know what a poor justification means. In words alone, it summons in my brain the idea that you believe my reasons are somehow lacking foundation. My views include animals having moral standing, but you seem to take issue with the fact that moral standing alone was not what drove my lifestyle change. In my mind, a strong justification is built robustly on many pillars.
Here's a thought experiment. Ever watch Star Trek? From the Next Generation on, the show featured a piece of technology that produced all food on the ship. Replicators. They recreated molecule for molecule a dish on an atomic level. The end product being not from animal suffering, but could contain animal proteins. Essentially, it would be meat. Would you eat it? Given the idea of moral standing alone, there would be no basis for objection since no suffering took place to create such a meal. If however, you had reservations about health, or how resource intensive one of these machines are, you may elect to still not eat the meat. So which of our views holds under this? We can explore the notion that livestock farming will become more eco-friendly, and I'll be grateful for that. It won't make me want to eat meat though. So where is the weakness?