If the suffering of animals matters, then eating meat is morally wrong. Animals are non-human persons who are aware of their own existence and who feel a wide range of emotions, just like we do. Killing animals may still be acceptable in western society, but it's wrong. It's wrong just as slavery in the United States in the 18th and 19th century was once acceptable but wrong. Just as hanging, drawing and quartering t…
I am aware that we are causing pain to animals. But eating meat gives me so much happiness that I am not willing to live without it.
I sometimes draw an analogy between veganism and the extreme anti-force / volitionalist stance of radical libertarians. In both cases is may be radically moral, but the problem with the libertarian case is similar to what you just said.
Government force is just so easy. Is there some systemic social ill that manifests in an emergent fashion from the market? Pass a law and force it to change. Wealth redistribution by force improves the lives of the vast majority of people too.
There may be force-free alternatives to these mechanisms, but it's clear that if they exist they are more difficult. Thus most people are willing to sacrifice some of their (and their neighbors) freedom and autonomy for free health care, free retirement, easy fixes to emergent problems and tragedies of the commons, etc.
I can't say I'm different. I would prefer to have a "softened" market in which some wealth is redistributed by force to me and my middle class contemporaries (as well as to those less fortunate than me) even if it is less moral according to a radical moral theory.