I don't think that a good analogy. i've never heard of a carnivore who thought meat eating was morally better. Their argument is that meat eating is not so much worse that it becomes an ethical no-no, rather than a ethically neutral lifestyle choice. (Morally level ground).

I have. The argument went something like this:

• For humans, an action that is natural for humans is more moral than an act that is not natural for humans, all else equal.
• For humans, eating (some) meat is natural.
• Therefore, for humans, eating (some) meat is more moral than not eating (some) meat, all else equal.