I would add that that is probably more likely if you make money or a career of it. It's a sad issue that those that explore philosophy and other topics in media, academia, or any kind of stage, will feel pressure to deliver something and that easily leads to investment in a theory or perspective. I think most of us on the sidelines are quite alright with being undecided. Though, of course, you'll keep your biases.

There are several rules you can apply to scrutinize your own consumption. "the least amount of harm", for example. And/or the lower forms of life are more acceptable to eat or breed for slaughter (for example, a cow is less ok to eat than lice). Most use a combination. I think hunted animals can be fine since it's necessary to keep wildlife populations in control. Some might disagree and that's okay by me. But if you're at the level were a cow is just as problematic to eat as a carrot would be, then I dont think you've made an honest effort to think through your choices.

For example, imagine that people have the choice to buy clothes from sweatshops or from a factory where the workers have rights and decent pay. We can discuss the choice from a lot of angles: maybe the sweatshop is good for the economy, maybe the good factory makes it money by slave labour further down the production line. Maybe maybe maybe - totally fine and something worth discussing. But if you're stance is "I like the sweatshop I like the clothes and it's fine." Then you're not really, honestly, engaging with the question and you're just covering up the dissonance.

It's like whenever problematising meat eating is brought up on reddit (even on philosophy subs) the response is "why even have morals and ethics, we are just simple animals." The sheer amount of frankly thoughtless and unscrutinized arguments people bring forth to dismiss the issue is maddening.