In recent years, a societal renegotiation regarding the modalities of meat consumption has been taking place, not least triggered by current sustainability discourses as well as scandals regarding meat production and processing facilities. This has led to numerous (emotional) discussions against different backgrounds and in different media. Societal discourses provide an insight into the relationships of the individuals involved to animals, and how these relationships influence their meat consumption. To analyze these discussions, the discussion about the meat-free Kassel Environmental and Cultural Festival (“Umwelt- und Kulturfest”) 2017 in the social medium Facebook was chosen and examined as an example. The epistemic question was which topics play a role in the discussion or in the decision about individual meat consumption. Furthermore it was analyzed how the connection between animals and meat is presented in the examined Facebook comments. The dataset consists of contributions collected on Facebook – posts and comments – written in the months of February, March and April of 2017 regarding the “Umwelt- und Kulturfest” in Kassel. A content analysis according to Mayring was conducted on a qualitative level, including some semantic additions (Mayring, 2015, p. 61 ff.). For the classification of the contents in the overall discussion, a structural analysis was carried out, loosely based on the discourse analysis according to Jäger (Jäger, 2015, p. 90 ff.). The presentation of one's own person or diet on Facebook provides information about which modalities of consumption and which valuations of animals are currently socially desirable (Goffman, 2006, p. 23 ff.; Krämer et al., 2015, p. 5). In this context, intensive animal farming, ‘cheap meat’ and high meat consumption were viewed negatively and associated with poor animal husbandry conditions or animal suffering. Commentators stated not to consume these modalities. Instead they claimed to buy and consume more expensive meat from good husbandry in small quantities (supporters of an animal welfare approach), or to reject meat consumption (supporters of an abolitionist approach to animal rights) (Grimm & Wild, 2016, p. 45 f.). The (intrinsic) valuation of animals is related to the (economic) valuation of meat as well as the acceptance of animal use (Regan, 2004, p. 243 ff.). The ethical approaches of animal welfare and abolition (reformism as a possible mixture or transition) can be seen as a moral standard to differentiate between responsibility for animals and humans and food culture, according to which the respective presentation of one's own diet takes place (Bode, 2018, p. 31 ff.; Grimm & Wild, 2016, p. 45 f.). In the discussion examined, a questioning of the normality of meat consumption has begun, whereby a differentiation should be made between the critical consideration of meat consumption as such and that of carnism and the normality of meat consumption. In the data examined, meat consumption, as long as it meets at least the standards of an animal welfare approach, continues to be acceptable. The discussion takes place between the two animal-ethical approaches and negotiates how animals (in comparison to humans) are valued and/or whether they should be ascribed an intrinsic value, and how the right to enjoyment as well as freedom (in the form of meat consumption) vis-à-vis moral views should be classified.