I think your definition of morality is a higher abstraction of Ethical Egoism, or Randianism. Most Ethical theories are value-based. That humans have inherent value, aside from their value to society. Without a value-based system, serious problems arise. Can you provide a defense of why your value-less system does not imply those things, rather than an ad hominem attack? Those statements are anecdotal and cherry-picked to support a preconceived belief. So, you object to BSDM neighbors? But I'm mostly interested in your defense of why your ethical position doesn't support eating disabled people."Why is abuse of animals bad when we eat them!", "Why is it moral to kill pigs that are smarter than dogs", "what about disabled people, why not eat them". All of those questions are misleading and based on a kinder-gardeners understanding of morals.
Abuse of an animal causes
I do not want to share a house, a street, or a mcdonalds with someone who will hurt to make themselves feel better.