My ideas around vegetarianism/veganism are based around harm reduction, rather than the idea that life is too sacred to eat or some such notion.
The way I look at harm reduction supposes two things-
one, that to be moral I am not expected to be omniscient. If an attempt to reduce harm somehow creates a harmful effect that I did not foresee, this does not undo the value of the attempt.
two, that harm reduction exists as a spectrum and is not a zero sum game. An attempt to reduce harm does not lose all value if it only reduces some harm rather than reducing the all of it or a maximum amount. A failure to reduce harm at one point does not undo the value of attempting to reduce harm at a later point.
If I'm at a festival and the food truck has a veggie option I'll take it and consider that I've reduced some harm. The "best" option might have been to skip the truck entirely or pack vegan from home, but my willingness and ability to do this depends on a lot of the other life choices I've made up to this point.
My willingness (i.e. eating veggie when I would prefer meat) and my ability (i.e. having the money to afford to eat veggie, living somewhere with enough veggie options) are also things that I actively work on and adjust.
This way of thinking definitely has "rabbit holes" that I'm not sure I will ever be able to answer or reconcile, but are interesting to think about -
On the topic of value:
I love my leather jacket. It has kept me warm and protected on many long nights and through many misadventures. By having this leather jacket I am making a decision that it's use to me is worth more than the harm it causes. This can be complicated as the harm is contributory rather than direct (as most 1st world harm is) and I do receive a benefit that I consider substantial. How to I consistently assess moral value?
In a survival situation I would definitely eat any and all meat. In doing so I would be making a decision to value my life over other life. Since I don't believe that any life is inherently more valuable than any other, I can't deny that I would be making a biased, subjective decision and that there are limits to my ability to consistently apply logic.
On the topic of progress:
I bought my leather jacket second-hand as opposed to new. This reduces some harm and had no determent to me so it was an easy choice. Is it fine for me to continue to buy second-hand leather throughout my life or do I have an obligation to eventually stop or switch to vegan leather? If I have achieved some good, what creates the drive to achieve more good, especially if I could always be doing more?
Ultimately, I eat meat and I use animal products, but I try to be engaged and thoughtful about my decision making to reduce harm when I can.
