No, because Moral are subjective. Indeed the majority of people will agree what is and isn't moral but other then that, Subjective.
Subjectivity and relativity absolutely can not be part of morality. Morality vanishes when these traits are a part of a judgment or decision. The first two moral domains of the five are universal, and they are harm and fairness. Since all concious beings are capable of experiencing harm, it is objective then to say that to cause harm to a concious being is immoral. There is nothing subjective about it. If morals
were subjective, then we could say that Hitler was an upstanding guy for being so tenacious in upholding his shared views among the NAZIs of eliminating Jews.
And I think there is a flaw...Why is the 'person' killing' other for? And would not the same be said for animals?.
I don't know what you're asking here. If you're asking why it's ok for tigers to kill ungulates but not humans, it's because "ought implies can". Tigers don't have the mental capacity to understand the harm they cause when killing another concious being, therefore they can't be held culpable for doing it. Humans however indeed can understand the greater implications of causing harm to other concious beings, so we don't get away with it IMO.
...who are you to go around calling people morally inferior? Does it make you feel better about yourself?...
My whole point is that I don't go around doing so, and being vegetarian (leaning toward vegan) I happen to know a number of others too, and none of them go around thinking they're better than anybody else. If you're asking whether I think I walk a morally high ground compared to a meat eater, then yes, I do think so. Would you tell a human rights activist during legal slavery in america that he shouldn't have been so self righteous and mind his own business about whether others choose to keep slaves?
...Hmm, just because YOU don't know anyone that does it, doesn't mean there aren't people who do. If there are people who eat meat that do it, as Madhuri has pointed out form personal experience(and I have seen it to), I have seen vegetarian do the same.
Name one. I challenge you to find even one.
...I call BS on the 'Murder' part. It's a man-made legal term for the killing a another human, so I'm sorry it never applies to non-Human animals.
Fine, by technicality I have to give you that, but my point is that there is no difference IMO between a concious human and a concious animal of any other sort, so you're relying on a technicality which ignores the principle to which I refer. Nice try.
...And I would like to finish this with a quote I posted earlier:
[FONT=Century Gothic,Verdana,Arial]Life begets death and death begets life. Chaos is the fuel of creation. Something must always be destroyed for something to be created. [/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Verdana,Arial]Nature is harsh. It is unforgiving. The weak die or are killed by the strong. Life feeds on life. Even the strictest vegan is a plant killer. [/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Verdana,Arial]-John J. Coughlin- [/FONT]
That is all true. What does it have to do with preservation of harm from concious beings? It is not in opposition to anything I've said. On the other hand, it is misleading to people who haven't spent the time reflecting on the moral implications of this topic, because it grants the illusion that killing concious beings is always ok. That's called the naturalistic fallacy. Just becuase something is natural, it doesn't mean it's morally permissible. Murder is natural. That doesn't mean we should do it. Most animals have sex in public. Should we? It would be natural.