There are four primary reasons people espouse the vegetarian lifestyle: for the environment; for humanitarianism; for personal health; and, of course, for animals. These reasons will assume a different order (or none at all) depending on whom you ask. Is it possible, though, that some vegetarians are not overly concerned with how animals are treated? In Time’s How to Feed the World by Going Veggie, there is not a single reference to the suffering of factory-farmed animals. Not one.

Eben Harrell writes: “I don’t eat bacon cheeseburgers. About three years ago I gave up red meat and pork. I am American, and brother do I love bacon cheeseburgers. But I decided that as part of the imperfect project of trying to live a decent, moral life, I could no longer chow down on bacon cheeseburgers. I could not put my preference for the taste of a certain type of protein above the hunger of starving babies, or the imperative of tackling climate change.” So, his “decent, moral life” apparently stops short of any obligation towards other species.

Harrell reminds of meat’s flaws: more greenhouse gas emissions (18%) than all of transportation combined (14%), destruction of the rain forests, and the grossly inefficient use of resources. He says, “In a world where hundreds of millions of people go hungry, we snatch food from the mouths of starving babies and feed it to plump beasts.” And what of compassion for the 50 billion sentient beings slaughtered annually? Silence.

There are, Harrell asserts, other possible proactive measures humans can take: growing meat in vats, new farming technology, and less waste. Yet, it is his “ethical” diet (he is not a strict vegetarian, by the way) that gives personal gratification: “So altruism, in a sense, can be self-serving and liberating. That’s an alignment of incentives that even the most red-blooded, meat-loving American could appreciate. (Man do I miss bacon cheeseburgers though).”

Why, if the end result (less meat consumption) is the same, is this important? First, an environmental or nutritional vegetarian could, in theory, still countenance other forms of animal exploitation (research, entertainment). My message (animals have moral relevance) and Harrell’s message are not the same. His intentions appear beneficent, but are actually quite selfish (his health, man’s planet). Second, if the basis for vegetarianism is not a moral duty towards livestock, then what happens if/when the environmental, humanitarian, and nutritional paradigms are altered? What if meat production becomes more efficient and environmentally friendly (Enviropig)? What if we curb population growth and do not hit the projected 9 billion by 2050 (when meat demand is expected to have doubled)? What if meat becomes healthier (think how often dietary advice has changed in our lifetime)? Where, then, would this leave animals? Matthew Scully once wrote: “Factory farming isn’t just killing: It is negation, a complete denial of the animal as a living being with his or her own needs and nature. It is not the worst evil we can do, but it is the worst evil we can do to them.”