As a chef I’m not your dietitian or your ethicist, I’m in the pleasure business.
Can't make an omelette without killing a few people.
Specifically, I’d like to debate whether cannibalism ought to be grounds for leniency in murders, since it’s less wasteful.
I think all chefs who pursue great flavor have good ethics.
For now I ask no more Than the justice of eating.
What's the meaning of all the pious clamor, condemning cocks and hens? Those who have no teeth are the greatest meat-haters.
We don't usually think of what we eat as a matter of ethics. Stealing, lying, hurting people - these acts are obviously relevant to our moral character. In ancient Greece and Rome, ethical choices about food were considered at least as significant as ethical choices about sex.
If you're just grinding up hamburger at McDonald's, I see that as a bit of an affront to living things. You're not really honoring the life.
To eat steak rare... represents both a nature and a morality.
There's no such thing as 'bad' food or 'good' food.
While the political right may moralize sex, the political left is doing it with food. Food is becoming extremely moralized nowadays, and a lot of it is ideas about purity, about what you're willing to touch, or put into your body.
There's not a single chef I know of that does not think about the politics of the food they're serving.
Those that respect the law and love sausage should watch neither being made.
Too much trouble," "Too expensive," or "Who will know the difference" are death knells for good food.
When you serve lobster, you've taken a being's life away. Therefore if you create a recipe, you have to be very dedicated to elevate the lobster, to make it good and tasty of course, but at the end of the day it's a matter of paying homage.
