New York Times Makes Moral Decision for Readers

I’m not a particularly emotional person, but a New York Times editorial from this morning, Mr. Puck’s Good Idea, has me so enraged that I’ve been speechless for hours (you know I’m really angry when I have nothing to say). But I’m over it now.

Let’s deconstruct:

• A couple of days ago, the NYT (among others) reported that Wolfgang Puck will be removing foie gras from his menus. He’ll also be adding vegetarian dishes (not vegan), he’ll be using more organic food, and he’ll be jumping on the happy meat bandwagon by adhering to some form of ethical, humane guidelines that are wildly oxymoronic. Naturally, I had a thing or two to say about the article.
• Today’s editorial does do one thing right: it notes that the cruelty of factory farming isn’t limited to foie gras and veal.
• It also notes, for what it’s worth, that Puck isn’t the first chef to forgo factory-farmed meat and eggs.
• But the final line is shocking: "Mr. Puck’s gift for showmanship will help advance Americans’ knowledge that they can eat well and do right all at the same time."

It is so obscenely presumptuous, not to mention misleading, and let’s not forget incorrect, to say that making a few alterations in the way animals are bred and raised and slaughtered to satisfy the human palate, will ever make that process "right."  If killing without necessity is morally unjustifiable, how does it become "right" if we tweak the process a bit?