You're right. I was conflating some things.
Anyway, I do eat meat, and I do so without remorse. =P I'm just saying that the morality of eating meat is still arguable because in this day and age, where meat isn't essential, we technically don't need to eat meat.
I agree, there is certainly a moral issue to consider.
Humans are in a unique position. We have the capacity to understand right conduct from wrong, which presents us with choices and, arguably, responsibility too. We have the capacity to be moral agents and we are in a position of safe-living moral authority and stewardship over other animals. We have the ability to question and change what we have inherited from our evolution, and also question and change that which is cultural. The question should be if it's right for us to do something, not if it's right all across the animal kingdom.
There is no argument against eating dead things. That's purely a matter of palette. With the exception of cannibalism, which has overwhelming compelling arguments against it in most circumstances, not even needing to draw upon the instinctual/emotional revulsion of it.
There are good ethical arguments against certain farming, transportation and slaughter methods, though, that cannot be ignored. Once you subscribe to the fact that animals can suffer much like us, there are moral implications to the way we treat them. And one cannot deny that they suffer. Unless one denies logical and scientifically demonstrable proof.