I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Why would the fact that many animals meet an unpleasant but natural demise somehow excuse or otherwise dampe

I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Why would the fact that many animals meet an unpleasant but natural demise somehow excuse or otherwise dampen the implications of inflicting suffering or death onto an animal? I don't generally have qualms about killing animals for food, but "it's okay/less bad because this lobster might have been eaten by something else, or perhaps crushed beneath a rock somewhere" isn't a consideration that would ever play a serious role in my moral calculus of whether or not I should eat a lobster.