I know this is an old post, but I felt it necessary to respond. The author states that, "Even if eating meat were the best thing for an individual's health, it is still *wrong*." I hate to be the one who points out this outrageous misconception of the concept of morality. Natural Moral Law is the driving force behind what one 'ought' to do in order to maintain a just life. Since if we were to assume the author's contention to be true, then we must draw the conclusion that attempting to maintain a healthy existence is also wrong, when that cannot be the case. Natural Moral Law concerns the majority, and not the minority. Eating meat is necessary for the survival for the majority of the human race (vegans have yet to come up with a logical contradiction to this, so we will state this as a given). Even if a million people starve to death because of the majority's meat consumption, this consumption is necessary to maintain the lives of the majority. It is similar to the question posed to so many students of ethics: If the fate of the world's population was dependant on the brutal slaughter of a young, innocent child, then what is the proper course of action to take? The answer of course, is this: While it may be Unjust, (and therefore deemed by our society to be Illegal), killing the child is certainly the action that one 'ought' to do to preserve human existence on this planet. Thus, it is Moral. If you want to discuss the rights of the minority, then we have to talk about Justice, and not Morality.