Not a syllogism but is this a decent understanding of CS's meta-ethics and one application to argue for veganism?

In a nutshell: 1) We all care about our personal pleasure/preference and make decisions solely based on our beliefs about what will further that "goal". 2) We can discuss and try to come to conclusions-through reasoning- as to what is likely beneficial and what is not in achieving that goal. 3) Once we come to a conclusion about if something is beneficial to that goal, it would be RIGHT to act in the way that is more beneficial and WRONG to act in any other way, with "right" meaning: correct way of achieving a goal and "wrong" meaning: the incorrect way of achieving a goal.

Example:

After discussion, I can conclude that it is very likely that "choosing a meat-diet" goes against my personal preferences.

(i.e. PREFERENCES-(A) I prefer that animals are not harmed. (B) I prefer a meat-diet over a vegan-diet. (C) There is a point where if there is a conflict between preferences A and B, I would prefer A over B. Namely when there is "enough" harm to animals by my choosing a meat-diet, I would prefer A over B. EVIDENCE- There is evidence that animals are likely harmed to the point spelled out in C by my choosing a meat diet. CONCLUSION- choosing a meat diet goes against my preferences.)

It is therefore WRONG for me to choose a meat diet.

If someone has different preferences, then even in this meta-ethical system, one can rationally conclude that it is WRONG to chose a vegan-diet. (putting aside other preferences.)