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.

[–] jaackf@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Surely one side would be "kill nothing" and the other would be "kill animals"?

[–] stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub 0 points 1 year ago

Right but how else will they move the goal post to get a conversational W

[–] chetradley@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think it's morally neutral to ask why we kill animals. Do you kill the animals you eat?

[–] Skoobie@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] chetradley@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

By your definition, are you morally evil, trying to become neutral?

[–] Skoobie@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

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.