Is eating meat wrong? (DEBATE)

Veganism has been rising immensely these couple of years, people in the developed world are realising that we aren't cavemen and don't need to consume the flesh and secretions of animals for survival.
Is science and logic finally catching up with the mainstream?
There is plenty of evidence of how a Whole Food Plant Based (WFPB) diet is beneficial both for us and for the environment and these are two great reasons to reduce the consumption of animal products.
But what makes us stop consuming corpses entirely?

Living off our egos we tend to forget that the steak on our plate had a life and we tend to cover it up using inconsistent justifications. In this post I will explain a logical algorithm to check whether you're consistent with your values and why is it important.

This algorithm #namethetrait has been developed by youtuber Ask Yourself

.

According to this argument, veganism follows logically from human moral value.
It's that simple, whether you think morality is subjective or objective this argument will either prove you wrong or make you accept an absurd position.

I've been following the debates around this topic for over a year, I feel quite comfortable defending this position. At the same time I'm curious what new justifications people come up with.

The argument is the following:

Argument for animal moral value:
P1 - Humans are of moral value
P2 - There is no trait absent in animals which if absent in humans would cause us to deem ourselves valueless.
C - Therefore without establishing the absence of such a trait in animals, we contradict ourselves by deeming animals valueless

Argument for veganism from animal moral value:
P1 - Animals are of moral value.
P2 - There is no trait absent in animals which if absent in humans would cause us to consider anything short of non-exploitation to be an adequate expression of respect for human moral value.
C - Therefore without establishing the absence of such a trait in animals, we contradict ourselves by considering anything short of non-exploitation (veganism) to be an adequate expression of respect for animal moral value.

So what we are looking here is a trait that is present in animals which if present in humans would justify stabbing a human unnecessarily for food.

Just to be clear, ethical vegans aren't saying animals and humans are the same. For example I wouldn't give an animal the right to vote, in this case the trait is: "Conceptualize voting", I stay consistent by not giving the right to vote to humans that can't conceptualize voting, like children or intellectually disabled people.

Sentience is what we are looking here, the less sentience the less moral value.

Many people justify their consumption of meat by saying that since animals are a different species than us then it is ok to kill them unnecessarily for food. If you hold this position you wouldn't have anything against an alien species or sentient AI killing us unnecessarily for food. Speciesism at its core has the same ideology as racism and sexism.
White men discriminated against black people and women using an inconsistent ideology because they wouldn't have accepted the justifications they used to be used against them.

If we manage to create a sentient AI we should give it an ethical system which is built around the maximisation of wellbeing and reduction of unnecessary suffering for all sentient beings.
Sam Harris has a great book around it "The Moral Landscape".

This is my first post on Steemit, I want to see where it goes but I want to keep writing about logical consistency, ethics and morality. I believe this is a topic we have to become really good at if we want to live in a world where we cancel out unnecessary suffering.