I don’t think that’s really a difference of intent, but of action. The real difference between a vet putting down a dog and dog being literally beaten to death is absolutely not the intent of the killer, it’s the suffering of the dogs. Even if both people had nothing but good intent for the dog (for example, my uncle beat his pet rabbit to death with a bat to “put it out of its misery” because he wrongly thought it would be instantaneous), the vet would still be the better one for not causing unnecessary suffering.

Whether an animal is slaughtered to make a luxury product or an affordable product is also not a difference of intent, but of action based on profit-seeking. And that still seems like such strange moral reasoning to me. Do people really just think: “Killing minks for fur coats is morally wrong because I can’t afford fur, but killing cows for leather jackets is fine because I can afford leather”? Like, that the suffering of the animals is only morally important if you don’t stand to personally benefit from it? And people are just ok with that, despite generally believing that “what personally benefits me” is absolutely not an acceptable way to assign moral worth? It’s just baffling to me.