You're ignoring the neutral position, but I see the logic. Is this all-or-nothing? Is progress toward the goal no more morally defensible than opposition to it?
If someone generally tries to reduce the amount of meat and dairy they consume, that would be a more moral middle - if not neutral - stance between vegan and the "for every steak you don't eat, I'll eat three" people, wouldn't it?
No, because veganism is about elimination not merely reduction. That's a half measure. It would be like saying beating dogs only on the weekends is a moral middle if not neutral between being against animal cruelty and being pro animal cruelty
Then there's no moral reason for anyone to make steps toward the goal. Might as well be chainsawing cows in a field if you have the occasional piece of cheese.
Comments
And you obviously aren't.
Progress is better but not the end goal like you said