This is what I call "the Vegetarian's dilemma." Basically, you can't be a vegetarian (for moral reasons) and a capitalist, in the modern, western world, at the same time.
Say you shop at a store that sells meat. Your money helps them buy that meat, even if they make no money on the meat, as they can use it as a loss leader: they have your funding to fall back on. So you stop shopping there.
But, hold on, the employees at that shop get payed by the other customers there, right? Customers like, say, the baker and the landscaper that you use. So now you can't pay them either, as they'll go out and pay the shop, and then the shop will go out and buy meat.
Take it as far as it can go, and it's clear that you can't participate in a capitalist society that also contains immoral business transactions without rendering yourself immoral.
Yes, precisely. This is the point at which you say "I may be indirectly supporting the slaughter of animals financially, but I need to eat. The benefits outweigh the costs, and I'm reducing the demand for meat. I hope that will make a difference. Maybe eventually demand will drop to the point that stores stop carrying meat if enough people follow my lead."
No, you can never support only entirely moral entities, but you can still make a difference. It's not an either-or proposition.
Say you shop at a store that sells meat. Your money helps them buy that meat, even if they make no money on the meat, as they can use it as a loss leader: they have your funding to fall back on. So you stop shopping there.
But, hold on, the employees at that shop get payed by the other customers there, right? Customers like, say, the baker and the landscaper that you use. So now you can't pay them either, as they'll go out and pay the shop, and then the shop will go out and buy meat.
Take it as far as it can go, and it's clear that you can't participate in a capitalist society that also contains immoral business transactions without rendering yourself immoral.