Is it immoral for animals to eat eachother?

What is the impact if true?

This question is my second in response to Peter Singer's argument against eating animals. In the first part I established that animals do indeed have souls (we can discuss this also).

from my analysis:
"The notion animals possess souls leads to a second interesting question: is it immoral for animals to eat other animals? According to Singer's logic it stands to reason that it is immoral for such action to be taken against another soul-possessing organism. While Singer argues specifically against human consumption of animals, his logic extends to all animal interactions. The distinction can be made that many animals must consume animal flesh for survival where people can subsist without the pleasure of consuming meat. This argument falls to the simple fact that while plants may not be part of a specific organism's diet, said organism can undoubtedly survive off plants alone. If we accept the idea that animals possessing souls act immorally by consuming each other, what is the impact?"

The Challenge of the Ring of Gyges

In Chapter 2 of the The Republic Glaucon, the brother of Plato, challenged Socrates to provide a reason to act morally even when immorality appeared more profitable. He related the story of the ring of Gyges, a ring which gives the wearer invisibility and hence preserves his (or her ) anonymity in committing the most egregious of crimes. Such a person may maintain his reputation for good while stealing, pillaging and seducing at will.

Is such a challenge too unrealistic? Must morality and virtue be its own reward, without any external benefits, to answer Glaucon's challenge? Are other reasons to act morally that don't provide a reason to eschew Gyges' ring just as valid (recall Socrates discussion in the last chapter of The Republic)?

Smackdown: Socrates vs. Homer

Plato (through the mouthpiece of Socrates) criticizes certain traits in Homer (and other poets) work. Is there any truth to his criticisms? Or are his proposals examples of unjustified censorship? Should poetry or literature ever be repressed under any circumstance to any audience?

Philosopher Kings Anyone?

Plato proposes (through the mouthpiece of Socrates) that the best form of government is one in which a philosopher is king (or at the very least a king is trained as a philosopher). Is he correct? What problem exist for this view? Even with all its flaws, is it better than all alternatives? In particular, is it an improvement over democracy?