As much as I dislike the idea of moral relativism, I don't know if there is any way to frame "things feeling pain" in a way that can be analyzed in such a way to come to an objective conclusion.

On one extreme, we can compare the reaction of an animal in pain to our human experience, and subjectively project that onto the animal, and come to the conclusion that killing animals is "bad".

On the other extreme, if I cut a limb off a tree, the tree reacts in a way to protect itself from death due to the limb being removed. The bark slowly grows back over the stub and eventually the wound is sealed away from immediate access by insects and such. Subjectively, we can reduce the reactions of animals, the "pain reflex" to exactly the same thing, a survival mechanism intended to minimize the damage inflicted on a living thing.

But both, and indeed any conclusion that lies anywhere in between, are entirely subjective. Personally, my own moral compass indicates that causing needless pain is immoral, but that animals are tasty, and eating them is part of the natural order. And who are we, to assume that we as Humans are so far above, so much better than, the natural order? That seems almost like hubris to me.

But again, that is all subjective, and no more valid or invalid than anyone else's conclusion. So I don't know where to go with it. I certainly respect anyone's individual conclusion, even if it greatly disagrees with my own. But I don't whatsoever respect a person who tries to force their own subjective conclusion upon me, unwillingly, be that through individual force, collective political force, or whatever. I have absolutely no tolerance for that. Objective conclusions, sure. We can use reason and logic to figure out what is right and what is wrong in those cases. But forced subjective stuff? No way, man. No way.

Reading back over that, it sounds more meany-faced than I intended. Please don't read any aggression into the above. There is absolutely none intended, towards anyone. :)