What about if if society ate meat? There's no clear argument against it
So I think you're saying things like this because you're only considering humans (and I guess cats and dogs). The whole thing about 'ethical vegetarians' or whatever you want to call them, is they are people who don't just consider humans and nothing else when thinking about who is harmed (or rather, not just humans, cats and dogs). It seems entirely arbitrary to draw that line at the exact point between humans and everything else. At least, it's not easy to think of a reason to do this, except we are humans or I was brought up doing it this way etc, which aren't very good reasons. Whatever particular quality you choose, the line isn't there. Intelligence? Some animals are smarter than some humans, etc. For me and a lot of people, being able to feel pain, suffering, is a good line to draw. Anyway, I'm no expert, I haven't read or thought about this stuff for decades, there's a large literature on the subject, which it sounds like you don't know about, and shouldn't be saying things like "There's no clear argument against it" when you have no idea whether there is or not. (Christians think there's no clear argument against their god or their ridiculous mythology, well, it's clear enough if you aren't already a believer.) But from the evidence, it seems reasonable that animals deserve ethical consideration, not just treated like, well, like slaves, like pieces of 'meat' waiting to be exploited by humans. There's no clear argument they don't, I'd say. Although there's no clear argument is an unfortunate phrase, being so subjective.
It's why I think slavery is a useful comparison - they're not just ethical questions, but questions about who is to be even included in the ethical circle, who is worthy of consideration, respect, decent treatment. Before even considering whether they're getting it.
Also, I don't think I've heard the term moral views used like that before, it's sad that it's such a bad phrase for you. Although I'm in Australia, the country isn't full of religious people running around proclaiming their insane god-given morality unlike some, e.g. the USA.
As a simple test here you can envision a thought experiment. Take two of the most extremely amoral individuals who disagree on everything subjective except for their own desire for self preservation and growth. And of course we have to assume they'll always tell the truth when answering these questions, and also know the other person is also telling the truth. Any law you can get these individuals to agree upon is like to be a rational law. And you'd find they would agree to not kill each other, to not steal from one another, and so forth and so on. The things they would disagree upon would be moral laws -- eating meat, belief in a god, sexual behavior, usury, relationship views, etc.
You are arguing that people ought not be carnivores or omnivores because of moral views.
I've tried to understand what you mean by the term moral views, which I've never come across before. I've tried to explain the reasons behind my thinking that people shouldn't eat animals. Given the reality and the science, it seems the most reasonable position to me. You just seem to ignore all that each time and reiterate exactly the same claim, that I have no reasons at all, that it's identical to people arguing for execution for homosexuals with no good reason at all except god says so. I don't at all buy the way you talk or think about this stuff. I don't think there's much point continuing. Thank you very much for being so civil and patient, I appreciate it! The last time I tried understanding someone's unusual views about ethics/morality on here, the guy ended it with "You sound like a retard." haha.
I've never said you have no reasons. I've said that your reasons are moralistic in nature. In other words arguing that stealing is unlawful because is stealing is bad, as opposed to arguing that stealing is unlawful because of the predictable cause and effect sequence of events that would lead to chaos and likely the very literal destruction of modern society if it were legal. Arguing based on morals is a concept that inherently feels right, as one takes a stand for what they feel is just and right. Yet it's the very sort of behavior that stands to regress and undermine the very nature of modern free and liberal societies.
The distinction and issue I am considering is between those imperatives we ought desire to encode into law as opposed to personal beliefs or opinions that ought remain something executed only at an individual level. What I've proposed is that unless an act can be shown to be unambiguously and directly harmful to a society, it ought be considered an opinion, rather than an imperative or something that is wrong enough to justify its prohibition by law. So again using the same example, would the existence of legal theft cause a clear and imminent harm to society? There would be nobody, excepting perhaps the insane, that would argue that it wouldn't. What about if if society ate meat? There's no clear argument against it without major appeals to moral views, which should relegate it to the realm of an opinion.
To go in the opposite direction, if we accept the idea of creating imperatives or laws based on moral views, it can rapidly lead to endorsing very absurd notions. For instance the countries and individuals that believe individuals should be executed for being atheist, or homosexual, or engaging in perceived blasphemy against their god or gods do so while appealing to moral views. Such actions cannot be argued to be causing directly harm to society, but they can be argued to be harming the 'moral fiber' of a society from some group's subjective perspective. These are the sort of views that ought remain subjective opinions, instead of legal and enforceable imperatives.