Morality doesnt exist. It is not a material thing, it doesnt refer to anything that exists in the real world. Morality is in the same class as god, religion and human rights i.e human inventions, human fetishization of abstract concepts. Abstract concepts have no effect on material reality any more than we will them to. For example, religion is a thing only because people believe in it.
So I never use morals and morality as an argument in anything. The struggle for a better world doesnt need it at all. Exploitation is ended when workers pursue their self interest, no morals involved here. Veganism is achieved only when you make people empathise with animals (a bio-chemical reaction) or when you physically ban meat, not because of any morals. I can give many more examples.
In fact, it is precisely morality that is one of the tools of the oppressor. Notice how worker ownership of profit is bad because "the capitalist deserves his share". This is a moral argument, not a material argument. When the ruling class enforces laws that harms millions, it is justified because the law is just. This is another abstract moral argument. When workers fight back, or when you just shoot a billionaire or a politician, it is said to be immoral, because reasons. You can make up any bullshit reason, and any bullshit argument because you are not dealing with material things, so there is simply no way to be correct or wrong.
Marx is said to have laughed when people used to make moral arguments with him. Stirner completely destroyed morality as an idea, Nietzche revealed the psychology behind morality etc.
EDIT: Looks like this sub is thoroughly spooked. I guess I should have expected it considering you're all liberals. Don't worry, I will keep posting Stirner memes until morale improves.
This is true. That's why most people eat meat.
People also eat meat for other reasons too though. Many of them are just cultural, which I assume you don't believe are real either.
There may be many reasons why people eat meat. You are confused about the nature of the argument. I'm not saying that morality doesn't affect people. It does affect people, just like the concept of God affects people, even though he is doesnt exist either. I'm saying that morality doesn't exist materially outside the brain. So it is a choice whether or not you can let moral ideas affect your actions. It is not a choice, for example, whether or not you let gravity affect you, or let the urge to poop affect you. However at the same time, since other people let moral concepts affect their actions, indirectly it affects me too. So I can not believe in God and god wont smite me, but other people can crucify me. That's how people end up being affected by things that arent real outside their brains.
The fact that people can be spurred to action by ideas refutes your purely materialist understanding of reality. That's why it's dumb and unhelpful to look at the world this way.
Once again you miss my argument. Here's a sentence I'm repeating - " I’m not saying that morality doesn’t affect people. It does affect people, just like the concept of God affects people, even though he is doesnt exist either. I’m saying that morality doesn’t exist materially outside the brain. "
Materialism doesn't mean "thoughts arent real", it means that thoughts themselves are material. And that there exists objects outside of our thoughts. What is idealist is acting in such a way as if thoughts are material objects outside our mind. In what way is this unhelpful?