Firstly, I would like to say that what happens in the animal world has no bearing on morality. You said it yourself, morality is a human thing. So a lion is not a moral agent, I would not judge it for eating a zebra, nor do I believe that we should try to prevent it from doing so. However, just because animals do something, it does not mean it is not immoral for us to do so, it is as natural for certain animals to eat humans, as it is to eat other animals. That does not mean that murder is moral now, suddenly. Similarly, it is not the case that because it is not immoral for animals to kill other animals(they are not moral agents), it is ok for us to do so.

Secondly, the words direct/indirect do not mean intentional/unintentional. I do not think it is sensible to claim that the more removed you are from the consequences of your actions, the less moral responsibility you bear, but it seems to me like you are excusing the behavour of carnists(that word is, as another commenter put it, metal as fuck) by claiming that most of them are ignorant of the consequences of their actions, but this has nothing to do with how "direct" the act is. I would like to add that the reason for the ignorance of most meaters(meat eaters) with regards to how the animals are treated is their characters, they are keeping themselves in ignorance and are resistant to attemps to enlighten them.

Ah, the classic diffusion of responsibility under capitalism.

The consumer is blameless because they have no control over the production process. The people committing abuse are blameless because they're just doing what they're paid to do, and if they didn't do it someone else would. The CEO is of course blameless because they have a feduciary responsibility to maximize profits for their shareholders. And so, the real villains are the shareholders, like granma who has a S&P 500 retirement fund with 0.00001% of the company.

If you accept that when it comes to meat, then what's the difference when it comes to something like slave labor, or sweatshops? A company sets up in a third world country with deplorable, illegal conditions, which are necessary to compete in the market and secure a contract with a multinational corporation, if their practices get exposed, the big corporation pleads ignorance, some low level manager takes the fall, and they set up another company to do the exact same thing. Once again, everyone's just responding to price signals and doing what they're told or what they need to to keep their job.

It's a wonderfully designed system that ensures that the evil necessary to keep the machine running can be performed without the hindrance of those peaky little consciences. But I have to question whether it's more moral to make sure everyone can pass the buck for doing something wrong, rather than one person directly doing the same thing and being responsible for it.

Is it more "moral" to kill someone if you do it via firing squad where only one gun is loaded than just having one person shoot them? Is it more "moral" to be 1% responsible for abusing 100 animals than 100% responsible for abusing 1? I'm not sure I understand the moral framework you're using to arrive at your conclusions.

You don't call a lion immoral because lions can't comprehend morality. That doesn't mean that humans can do the same actions without being judged morally. Lions can also kill other lions which would be more comparable to murder than your hunting example and still they wouldn't be held morally responsible and yet humans would if they killed another human. A lot of animals rape too, doesn't mean it's moral for humans to do.

The difference is that we CAN understand morality which is why we are held to moral standards and animals aren't. This is like, pretty basic stuff and shouldn't be at all confusing. Maybe read a book or two before having loud opinions?