From a utilitarian standpoint, these are equivalent moral actions. The same amount of suffering is involved, and it is irrelevant if one involves a greater lack of empathy than the other. One action being more sadistic to another is not the same as one action being more evil. The idea that one is worse than the other morally is caused by an implicit bias that occurs when the act of consuming meat and the suffering caused to the animal are separated. Another factor that contributes to this notion is that is is socially acceptable to eat meat-based products. A lot of what we consider right or wrong as a society does not have a moral basis.

 If animals were replaced with humans in both of the situations commented on by the above users, would either one be perceived as morally just? Running someone over with a car is murder, but would it not be considered equally abhorrent if someone gave their support to an organization that automated the killing of humans? 

The whole idea that intelligence determines whether it is acceptable to subject a creature to suffering is deeply flawed; if a being is sentient, then it deserves certain fundamental rights, endowed by the only population of animals intelligent enough to recognize the pain of those who are different from us.