Implicit Content of the Vegetarian Action

Vegetarianism is a moral choice fundamentally based on the decision not to eat the meat so an animal so it does not suffer. But why then does a vegetarian refuse to eat meat even when they played no direct part in the chain leading to the death of the animal for consumption? If a vegetarian was invited to a party and there was meat around why would they let it go to waste?

The first answer may be that that veggie is still participating in the chain that led to the death of an animal only in a slightly more distant way. Another possible reason that eliminates issue with this tenuous connection is that the act of refusing meat is a social signal the content of which makes it clear that eating meat is not pure.

In a world that meat eaters out number vegetarians maybe thirty to one (Wikipedia says so anyway) the vegetarian convinced of the moral efficacy of not eating meat is likely also convinced that others should follow suit. If there really was no possibility of significantly disrupting the meat industry vegetarians would not become so for moral reasons. The ideological content of not eating meat in these marginal cases where no direct material aid was lended to slaughter is emotive rather than moral, the slaughter of nonhuman animals for consumption is so dire that the veggie will refuse even in this case.