Claim: All beings capable of pain and pleasure are worthy of equal moral consideration
I take the objection to provide a counter-example displaying that the claim cannot be true in every situation. The counter-example given displays the claim prohibits actions we know are necessary. We cannot say animals eating, is not morally permissible because of the pain caused by the action. The idea follows that since this action cannot be perceived as wrong, humans’ use of animals cannot either. Singer could take the idea that the prey is there to support predators in the ecosystem and lions eating rabbits could have more benefit, as rabbits will continue to reproduce, but lions will die out. The consequence of not eating the rabbit would be much greater. You cannot expect or force lions to judge situations based on morality.