I think you mean "animals haven't invented morality yet; humans have". Morality does not exist in nature; you may think it is 'wrong' to eat other animals but that is not the case. It is a [u]fact[/u] that animals eat other animals; it is an arbitrary imposition of opinion to claim that humans eating animals is wrong and there is no stable basis for saying it is morally wrong at all. If morality is something which we have 'discovered' then please tell me the moral status of an exploding star or a tree photosynthesising. Is it 'immoral' for one tree to force another tree to die by depriving it of light? Don't be daft. There's a reason why morality is only spoken of when there's a human involved. Also, I am not claiming that because animals eat other animals we should too, I am telling you how life works. I like how you completely ignored my point about the apple when it explains the situation perfectly. There is no fundamental difference between eating an apple pulled from a tree and eating a fish caught from a river. In both cases you have 'killed' a living organism and intend to use it for your own sustenance. But somehow you think one is okay whilst the other is not. Sure a fish squirms about and suffers, but if that is the only reason you don't want to harm it then why not tranquilise it before killing it? No pain, no squirming; now it is exactly the same as the apple. But no, you will insist that somehow there is a difference; the fish is a proper living animal while the apple is just part of a plant. Well now you're just being speciesist.