Don't we all feel emotional about death...

Yes, our feelings are important and motivate the discussion. I should have said that some people reading your words might think your motivations are merely sentimental.

[The fly vs. dolphin question] is an ultra hypothetical question that diverts from the elephant in the room. How much I value I put on the life or a fly means absolutely nothing while we have billions of animals being raped, kept in cages without ever seeing sunshine ... Why do we do this, is the real question we should be asking.

The hypothetical question helps me understand the principle behind your choices. It is obvious to me that the killing and cages are bad. But it also seems to me that eating mushrooms is fine, and destroying a fly that causes annoyance and disease is acceptable.

If I can't explain the difference between these obvious cases, it will be hard for me to decide what to do in tricky, in-between cases.

Here's an example. After our last discussion, I reduced the amount of meat that I consume. But I still eat eggs. I don't worry about the eggs at all. (Do you?) I do think about the hens, and try to buy eggs that have encouraging labels on the package, though I have doubts about how much difference it makes. But even if the hens live in relative comfort and are not subject to such treatments as forced molting, the male chicks were probably killed shortly after birth. Is a male chick, with a brain the size of a peanut, more like a fly or a dolphin? Understanding why I would refuse to eat dolphin and don't worry about swatting a fly helps me make a decision about eating eggs.

This is, to me, exactly what "Critically analysing the moral consistency of our beliefs" means. We cannot simply repeat slogans like "We must respect life!" We must ask difficult theoretical questions like "What is life?" and "Are some forms of life more deserving of respect than others?"

We may soon have the option of eating chicken meat made from a chicken body that lived without a brain. Not very appetizing, perhaps, but is it ethically superior to what goes on now? Would 3D-printed fake meat be more like a fly or a dolphin?

Who's to say that, for example, whales don't think the same of themselves and feel we're an abhorrent violent species with no respect for life and the planet?

If whales think this, then whales also have the correct anthropocentric view that the human species is the most powerful and important species on the planet. Human behavior can determine if whales go extinct, the reverse is not true.

Your point of view is also human-centric. Plenty of animals are violently killed by other animals (even when not necessary for survival), but you recognize that only humans are capable of making thoughtful, ethical choices.