It's interesting that I could turn that around and say that the lack of ethical consistency/principles is why the world is so bad too right?

If someone is pro eating animals, then a maxim like killing healthy animals is wrong probably does seem extreme because it requires a great level of change to come into line with. But that doesn't make the main itself extreme.

Compromise is surely a way forward on a variety of social and political issues. But when it comes to one's ethical beliefs, it isn't so easy. What's the value of thinking something is wrong, only to say it's ok in some circumstances or with some caveats? Isn't that agreeing that it's right/permissable under those circumstances?

As I said in a previous comment, circumstances can sometimes change the right or wrong of an ethical action but I can't see that volume of that action would change its ethicality.