Of course, in the age of google, to ask a question of a certain type is the same as finding the answer. an excerpt from a book on the ethics of eating by Stephen Best, a philosphy prof from UTEP:

"...[W]e have duties not only not to interfere with animals and not to eat them, but also to come their aid and defend their interests; it is not simply enough not to harm, we have an active duty to assist. Which epitaph would you prefer: 'here lies Mr. Bland, he did no harm and minded his own business,' or 'here lies a citizen of the world who served others with passion and conviction'? There is some truth in the stewardship ethic: our unique status as conscious, self-aware, ethical, rational beings gives us unique duties and responsibilities. Among our duties is the negative duty to avoid flesh and to boycott the meat and dairy industries; when we buy their products we are saying: 'yes, I approve of what you are doing to the animals and the earth; here is my money to support your venture'! But the positive message of both Christianity and a secular rights standpoint is that ethics demands compassion, love, sacrifice, and service. How corrupted do our sensibilities have to be to think that this message applies only to human beings? Do love and compassion have boundaries? Of gender, race, tribe, or nation? -- or species? We are to serve all those beings who need our assistance; the least among us have the greatest claim to our service, and thus the animals have a mighty claim indeed; they do not have a voice and so they must rely on the voice of human reason and compassion...."