Where do we draw the line?

Where do we draw the line between morality and depravity? In some cases, maybe the answer to this question is straightforward; few people would argue that thievery is a behavior that should be condoned. But when it comes to our actions towards animals, "everything gets progressively more abstract" as we move from those most similar to us to those that have few evident commonalities.

For just over a year now, I've been a pescatarian, which for those who don't bother themselves with pedantic terminology simply means that while I don't eat meat, I still include fish in my diet. Maybe it just seems like a fancy word to describe a lack of commitment to full vegetarianism, but I made my decision based partially on health, partially on ethics, and partially on the fact that I'd never really enjoyed the taste of meat to begin with. All that being said, my dietary decisions did little to protect me from the discomfort I was confronted with after reading "Consider the Lobster."

On what basis do we decide which animals are acceptable to consume? Is it intelligence? Similarity to humans? Some arbitrary factor? The majority of Americans don't think twice about enjoying a burger or a piece of chicken, but are repulsed when asked to consider the consumption of animals like dogs, which though an uncommon practice, is still legal in some parts of the world. It's probably only natural to feel uncomfortable when the ethicality of your dietary actions is questioned, but maybe it's important to explore why we feel this way. I'm definitely not trying to argue that any one lifestyle is superior when it comes to morality because there's an admittedly considerable gray area that exists within this discussion. At the same time though, I think David Foster Wallace had a point in forcing us to question our thought process. Perhaps what morality really encompasses is the strength to deal with such questions in spite of the ease of avoiding them.