avoid

Words that do not denote a corporate form, like 'apple' almost always have a polarised sense in that there is an opposite in this case, immoral.

A clear definition of any word is an impossibility as communication and language is relative, to experience and position. However moral seems to indicate other polarised ideas such as 'good'
The application of a word may help clarify an inherent meaning although by no means is it absolute in expression or reception.

It may be that the killing of another human is immoral and if that be the case decisions that conclude the better/lesser of two evils, i.e. whether to kill one entity to support or save another seems inherently immoral too. What most people act upon is that, which is often the preferred outcome of immoral action. Morality is therefore not a question of lesser of two evils but how to avoid the killing.

Death in itself is not immoral and is the only guaranteed outcome of being a consumer not matter the sum of an individuals attempts to prolong their own existenmce at the expense of others. Death is the bonly right. ie.e the only guaranteed benefit, althogh few see it as such.

Moral arguments must be confined to ones that do not require acts of consumption. An act of sacrifice may indicate an acjknowledgement of moral value but depriving oneslef is no more moral that depriving another.

The worldly solution so soughgt after by mystics is to forgoe consumption without sacrifice. Mediation on life as a consumer only furthers the temproral body at the expense of the soul.