if eating animals was wrong there wouldnt be any meat eating animals.....
I believe I've had that conversation with vegan step-daughter-in-law, and she says she doesn't have a problem with what animals do to each other. She said "It's natural for them, and you can't expect animals to have a conscience. But we're able to
know that we're exploiting animals, and we shouldn't be doing it."
By the way, she has two cats, and I pointed out that she has to feed them meat products if they're going to survive, and she said that's natural too. I could have said that she doesn't need to sponsor their existence, but it didn't seem to be worth pushing the topic to that extent. At least her cats stay indoors and don't go out to kill anything.
I wonder if there were any purists when horsepower had to do with an actual horse. Even then, a horse's lot was nothing but work, relatively short and it didn't end in pastures full of clover. But some recognized that, for what it was worth.
Here in Massachusetts we have the intellectual heritage of all the noble thinkers. Bronson Alcott (while Louisa May was a child) tried to establish a commune ("Fruitlands") where they'd be vegetarians and also avoid taking advantage of any person or creature. So they wouldn't wear cotton, because it was grown by slaves, nor wool because it was stolen from sheep, and they couldn't afford silk (or they didn't want silkworms to die) so they only wore linen, and we get some cold weather around here, so they did plenty of shivering. And they weren't any good at farming anyway. I'm not sure if they had animals to do any of the work, or if that was making slaves of the horses.
There is one little factoid that I recall from Fruitlands that makes it relevant here. While it lasted, the commune attracted a few misfits and visionaries, and one of them was an "Adamite" named Samuel Bower, who was what we'd call a nudist. Unfortunately he's only a footnote to the story, but he apparently came from England. Where he ended up, nobody seems to know.