Many people may argue that eating meat is their personal preference. How far should we allow people to go when making personal preferences? If a rapist, wife beater, or child molester said their actions were in accord with their own personal preferences we step in. We stop them from causing harm and inflecting pain. Yet when someone’s personal preference is killing animals because they enjoy the taste we accept it. Why?? Because the blood isn’t on their hands? Personal preferences should be one sided, concerning the person making the choice. For example, the color they paint their home, or the phone company they choose. Those are personal preferences. Decisions which reflect and concern only the person making the decision. When one chooses to eat meat because of a personal preference no one thinks about the animals preference. Because the animal would choose to live, just as a victim of rape or abuse would chose not to be harmed. Personal choices should be ones in which violence is not an outcome. The definition of preference is a choice; a special liking for anything over another. So what does this mean in terms of choosing to eat an animal? Someone prefers, or likes, animal flesh over what? Human flesh? Vegetables? Killing and torture should not be considered a personal preference.