You're viewing a single thread.
Personally, I just think the moral middle ground would be to be the person that slaughters and butchers the animals you eat. It would allow the most respect for all parties imo.
The moral middle ground is to not kill animals (or pay someone to) if you don't need to.
I don't know. That feels a bit off-center to me rather than middle considering one end of the spectrum is "kill nothing ever" and the other end is "How many endangered animals can I make extinct just for funsies." If everyone killed what they ate themselves, manually, I bet we'd have a bunch more vegetarians hanging around.
I think it's morally neutral to ask why we kill animals. Do you kill the animals you eat?
I agree that question is morally neutral. And not yet, I don't, but that is the long term goal. I've got the land I would need and am working on fencing. In the interim, I have switched to meat raised and butchered by hand.
By your definition, are you morally evil, trying to become neutral?
Hmmm, I hadn't considered it in those particular terms, previously. I would definitely say my actions are less moral than they would be if I was doing the raising and butchering myself. Evil feels harsh but if we are using clear cut terms like good, neutral and evil, then I have to put my current actions in the evil column. And since my entire argument is based on a moral middle ground, I would say yes. I am attempting to move into morally neutral territory.
Surely one side would be "kill nothing" and the other would be "kill animals"?
Right but how else will they move the goal post to get a conversational W