Veganism

[Thumpalumpacus]

That's a good objectivist criticism...but ofc, it's not a good criticism if objectivism is false.

That precipice exists. That ground below it exists. If you wish to argue that objectivism is false, go on with your bad self.

Similarly, when it comes to eating animals....that you have to eat, that you are a particular kind of creature on a particular kind of world, that you only have x y or z options available, that all of them are suboptimal....none of this matters outside of an objective understanding.  The preists of the almighty chicken do not care about the details of your chicken eating offense.  It's death no matter the facts of the matter.  You should have committed self righteous suicide rather than eat the chicken, and since you didn't, they're going to correct that mistake.

Right, so the judgement that eating chickens is right or wrong depends on where you stand in the hierarchy of chicken priesthood, which is a very long-winded and suboptimally entertaining way of admitting that morality is not objective.

"Should" is you sneaking in moral imperatives into this discussion when you know that you cannot defend morality objectively. It doesn't mean the imperative is right or wrong. It means that you hope it is not noticed.

Remove any human experience or judgement, and then -- only then -- point to anything in the universe that makes a moral statement about eating other life-forms. Oh, that's right, you can't. That's because morality is not objective. It is a human construct and perforce varies with the individual in question.

When I was in college, I had a history professor whose favorite quote was "History is a fable, agreed-upon". When it comes to objective morality, that truism is equally valid. That is because both history and morality are human pursuits colored by human understandings that are subject to human biases and perspectives.

Or, you could point to where in the universe moral precepts are scientifically demonstrated. Protip: you can't.