Again, I'm not sure you're seeing the distinction between rational law and moral law. You are arguing that people ought not be carnivores or omnivores because of moral views. The people that argue for things like execution for atheists or homosexuals do so under the exact same perspective. By contrast, rational laws can be derived with absolutely no notion or appeal to morality whatsoever. And once again, if you start to accept morality as the basis for an imperative you're suddenly creating a far more arbitrary line that you claim to be protesting here as you want the morality of your worldview to be seen as an imperative, but not the morality of another individual's worldview to be seen as an imperative.
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.
The metaphor of me not being able to see something that you can see clearly isn't a helpful one.
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.
Morals are concerned with the subjective goodness or badness of an action. Rationality is not concerned with the nature of an action, but only with its ultimate consequences.
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.
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.