Chiesa's answer is that the exemptions of and within these industries (whether such exemptions are officially designated as "exceptions" to anti-cruelty laws or as falling outside the coverage of such laws altogether) reflects the view (a view with which Chiesa himself takes issue) that some acts of cruelty are "justified" by the benefits to human beings from the consumption of animal flesh and products, from the process of hunting, and from the information that is gained from the use of animals in research. Despite these benefits, however, anti-cruelty laws recognize and acknowledge that the brutal treatment by people of animals is a wrong suffered as victims by the animals, even in cases in which the cost/benefit analysis permits such treatment to continue.
-- Sherry Colb
Some time ago, though as an adult, I became a vegetarian. My basic reason was consistency -- respecting those who hurt, taste alone does not justify the harm that goes into eating an omnivorous diet. The fact that, as discussed by Jeffrey Masson in The Food On Your Plate, it also has environmental and health implications (though health is not my primary concern) only underlines the point. Never was a supporter of hunting or fur.
Like those who are not perfect, this does not mean I at strictly vegan. This is largely a result of convenience, particularly when eating desserts. Vegan desserts are perfectly fine vis-a-vis others, but are not readily available. All the same, I do not eat eggs or dairy products generally, including pizza, cheese, or milk. Again, this does not mean every food I eat does not have them. And, though I repeatedly try to avoid it, at times my footwear had some portion of leather. All the same, I have obtained dress shoes and belts that are not.*
I can relate to those who view religion as a mode of life, every day acts a way to honor their God. My decision not to eat animal products (followed akin to people follow their faiths, imperfectly) is a moral choice in action. It provides a way for me to live my values and beliefs. It is not that difficult overall, even interesting, and provides me satisfaction. When you can do this, like giving blood every other month, it is an easy call. Living a good and satisfying life is far from easy, so you should take the easier stuff when you can.
There are many books on the subject of animal welfare and rights, particularly as it applies to the diet. Jeffrey Mason's The Face On Your Plate: The Truth about Food is a good a place as any. He provides a summary of the life of animals on factory farms, the environmental problems (including seafood), a reminder about how much animals are persons (with intelligence, culture, self-awareness, emotions, and so forth), a discussion of our denial of such facts, and a summary of vegan eating. Consider the five freedoms set forth by an UK committee:
Freedom from thirst and hunger
Freedom from discomfort
Freedom from pain, injury and disease
Freedom to express normal behavior
Freedom from fear and distress
Only a selective (and unprincipled) respect for animals warrants only caring about the well being of cute ones or ones you might have as pets/companion animals. The fact cows might be tasty does not deny that they are farmed and processed in ways that are not just environmentally harsh, but very painful for the animal. An article about harm to a pussy cat horrifies us. Millions of animals suffering for our palate does not. When this selective morality means the harm to humans in Iraq or whatnot, many (tellingly, only some) are uncomfortable.
Animals also deserve some degree of equal respect. Even if we like how they taste or look on our backs. We may laugh when Italians ban the use of fishbowls for goldfish. I never was too excited personally for either the taste (tuna fish a bit of an exception) of fish or joy of them as pets. But, since many actually enjoy them or comparably "lower" forms of life like snakes or whatnot, needless harm to creatures that do feel pain might seem wrong. Surely, if you are opposed to cruelty to horses or dogs, why not other mammals?
Or, even life as a whole? Rachel Carson is honored today for good reason. But, a journey begins with a first step. Care for animals, including by not eating them given what it takes to get to our plate, is a good one.
[Update: Checking out the reviews of the book over at Amazon, I might add that Masson's book is surely not the best analysis of the issue at hand. It is more of a personal beginner's approach (though his scientific background and wife being a doctor adds some weight). But, still, I think it is a decent approach that addresses the key issues.]
---
* Factory farming points to the core of the problem, so that even those who are not strictly vegans have took a very large step. Modern seafood manufacture has many problems, including harm to animals more likely to feel than shrimp and the like (fish do clearly feel). The book does not reference animal experimentation, but suffice to say, there is a lot of unnecessary harm there, even if we allow a certain core.
Some support small farm raised alternatives, but as the Masson notes, it is unlikely animals could be raised for food without being harmed in the process. As with hunting over factory farming, yes, there might be less harm. But, it is unnecessary, not akin to some culture where they need to hunt or fish for food. And those who do tend to have more respect for animals and the environment than we do.
Masson himself is not a totally consistent vegan, eating the stray pastry with eggs or dairy, and imperfection does not mean the effort is pointless. This is not how humans operate. Finally, some raise the specter of plants having emotions or whatever. Putting aside the care for the environment as a whole is important, it is rather unlikely, and even if, animals are clearly more harmed by our consumption. As are we in the process.