I'm really talking more about consistency. We can differentiate between keeping any kind of captive animal that is destined for food, whether it's food for us, for our cuttles or octos, our reptiles, or whatever in decent conditions or in deplorable conditions,and opt for the decent conditions. We can take the stand that keeping any kind of animal in captivity for the sole purpose of feeding our selves, our aquarium animals or our reptiles or whatever is wrong in principle, but do it anyway (again, in decent conditions) because we, and they, have to eat, or we can take the leap and say that we should avoid keeping any species of animal captive in order to feed another species. Of the three positions, probably the middle one is the least defensible morally. The last position is the least logical, because everything has to eat and some species will only eat live food. Of course, the other option is not to keep any species at all, eliminate all aquariums, zoos, wild animal parks, etc. But then you get to the fact that some species have almost disappeared in the wild because of disappearing habitat and the only thing that is keeping the species alive are the breeding programs in those facilities. Feeder goldfish are being kept and bred in horrendous conditions, but so are feeder hens, feeder beef, feeder anything. We need to be humane in the way we raise and keep any of them, or we need to stop doing it at all.