In a recent posting I referred to the fact that considered vegetarianism and veganism to be immoral, without enough elaboration. Several readers and blogger Julian Sanchez were aghast, with the Atlantic’s resident ob-gyn linking to the latter, so I figure it’s worth elaborating.

One reader, who assured me he wasn’t a nudist, pacificist, or sandal-wearer, explained his vegetarianism this way: “Why do I avoid such foods? Because I think animal suffering is a matter of moral concern, and modern methods of factory-farming are, without a doubt, currently a major cause of incalculable misery for millions of animals.” I agree that our treatment of animals does sometimes violate our obligation as stewards of Creation, which is why I linked to Matt Scully’s Dominion in my original post.

Likewise, others said they were vegetarians because people in modern societies eat too much meat. I agree, and in fact, especially in the summer when produce is abundant and fresh, I can happily go a day or even two without consuming any meat at all (as I also do during Lent).

The problem is that none of this is vegetarianISM, which, if words have meaning, is the normative principle that the consumption of animal flesh (and dairy and eggs, for vegans), under any circumstances, is wrong. None of the practical reasons offered for such a moral principle hold any water, which is why the only meaningful basis for such a normative stance is that animals are on the same moral plane as human beings.

The practical reasons are invalid to buttress such a principle because none is categorical. For instance, if our modern methods of animal husbandry are cruel and inhumane and unsafe, refusing to consume meat whose provenance is unclear is a perfectly sound decision. But it’s not vegetarianism, because it leaves open the possibility of buying meat at the farmer’s market or straight from the farm from a man who raised and slaughtered his livestock humanely, something that’s actually quite easy nowadays. Now, maybe you can’t afford that or don’t want to be bothered, so you avoid meat altogether just to be on the safe side — that’s vegetarian-ish, but it’s simply not vegetarian-ism.

Likewise, there’s little question that modern Americans (including myself) eat more meat than is good for us. (There goes my subsidy from the American Meat Institute.) To further betray my crunchy-con-ness, I think Michael Pollan’s advice to “Eat food, not too much, mostly plants” is on the money. When I go to a deli, I actually don’t want “mmmore mmmeat,” as the Quizno’s commercial boasts, I want less — I can barely get my mouth around a two-inch-thick pile of pastrami or beef tongue and would like a few vegetables in there. But if health reasons are your concern, then cut back — smaller portions, using it as a sort of condiment or base when preparing meals, and so forth. But that’s obviously not vegetarianism either, and not a basis for such a principle because man evolved eating meat and it’s natural and healthy for us to do so in moderation.

Vegetarianism as a matter of principle is simply wrong. Vegetarianism as a lifestyle choice is not, though too often it’s callow and silly, like the co-ed who in her moral vanity prides herself in her vegetarianism, except when she’s served a nice piece of farm-raised salmon.