Exactly. This is a &quot;thin end of the wedge&quot; argument.<p>If you agree that certain actions can be moral in limited circumstances, you also agree to support the moral logic they&#x27;re based on, on principle - even if that moral logic does huge harm elsewhere.<p>It&#x27;s a superficially clever rhetorical argument, but it&#x27;s not a very moral one.<p>If you&#x27;re a poor person, you don&#x27;t want to be in situation where PETA are offering to interfere in your life to make a political point - you want to be in a situation where you&#x27;re not poor in the first place.<p>There&#x27;s no point saying that bandaids can stop people bleeding and people who don&#x27;t want to use them are bad, if you don&#x27;t address why there are flesh wounds everywhere you look.<p>Are bandaids better than nothing? They are. But there are still people trying to fix the flesh wounds. Does the author support them, or not?