I don't think so. It can be very rational if you clearly define good and evil in setting as the OP did, or if there is some kind of metaphysical need for equilibrium.
But the reason the argument continues is that no one exactly agrees with the OP's definition. There is no Platonic ideal of Good and Evil that we can all agree upon, so alignment arguments always play out the same way, and ultimately default to the preferences of each DM or group of players, depending upon how collaborative the group is. Frequent arguments occur.
Alignment works fine if the group is fairly copacetic about what constitutes good and evil, but then you have to accept that contexts shift and what your group thinks is A-okay might not be the norm. What Lawful Good means to you is probably not what it means at another table, and almost certainly not what it
will mean to a group playing 30 years from now. So the definition of "neutral" will shift, as well.
For instance, take those Venn diagrams above. Did you know that Gary Gygax, the guy who brought the alignment wheel into the game, explicitly argued that killing, torture, and mutilation were fully compatible with Lawful Good behaviour in some circumstances? Yet those would fall very squarely in your "evil" diagram - basically, right at the heart of it. D&D is largely built around using violence and killing as the primary means of conflict resolution. So...context matters, and there is no objective Truth that we can rely upon to determine Good and Evil.
I think there are three viable ways forward:
1. Use the alignment wheel in a vague kind of way, relying upon a general consensus among each particular group. I think this is what most folks who still use alignment do most of the time, and it's fine. It has the appeal of keeping a traditional element of D&D in place, and some folks like it as a broad guide to roleplaying. Here muscular neutrality becomes a difficult concept, but usually winds up meaning someone who cares more about pragmatic results than following any particular path - so neutral, but not very muscular.
2. Strictly define Good and Evil according to the taste of the DM/group/author and arranging them into a kind of cosmic struggle - basically, different sports teams. Here your actions are closely adjudicated and have direct consequences - you can be kicked off your team. This is what a lot of D&D cosmology implies, and I think lots of us use bits and pieces of it, but few commit to a fully realized fantasy setting built around hardcore fidelity to specific alignment factions. Mostly, I think folks use it in the context of the Outer Planes, which are seen as the perpetually warring, Platonic (according to the taste of the author) ideals of the various alignments. In this case, muscular neutrality looks like a referee, and their job is to ensure that balance is maintained and no side wins too much because Reasons.
3. Don't bother with alignment and just assume that everyone has their own motivations and belief structures. Some are more ideological, some are less, and muscular neutrality, insofar as that is a meaningful concept, is probably someone who distrusts all ideologies. That's how I deal with alignment - by ignoring it - but this can add complexity that can be a feature or a flaw, depending on your taste. I'm not going to pretend that my taste is better than anyone else's. I will point out that no game time is spent arguing about good and evil, law and chaos.
