Can it be unethical to go for the buffet?
Source
Besides sushi I also enjoy buffets in general.
I have a very good appetite and that means that I get better value on such buffet offers.
However I've found myself increasingly reflecting upon buffets in an unusual way. I have been looking at such from a moral standpoint.
Buffets as Value for Big Eaters
Imagine that two persons go to a restaurant.
One orders a plate of pasta with a glass of soda while the other orders pasta for starters, the steak for a main and a lavish desert, washed down with a bottle of wine. They each consume their orders and are satisfied.
Now imagine that these two persons agree to split the cost of the meal half-way.
Might it not be fair to suggest that in doing so the person with the smaller appetite is actually paying for more than his or her fair share of the meal expenses?
Actually if you sometimes go out with colleagues then you might not need to do too much imagining, likely having experienced this in some form or other.
Is this not in principle similar to what goes on when one goes for the buffet?
Now lets imagine that these same two persons go to a buffet place.
Again, the one person is satisfied after a modest fill while the latter individual is satisfied following various servings.
They both opted for water and so get to pay the same price.
While the price-tag of the buffet for both was the same, the two participants clearly did not benefit equally.
Source
So why does not the restaurant opt to make the buffet cheaper?
The reason is that the buffet is priced with the latter individual in mind.
A business-savvy restaurateur will seek to ensure that none of the customers served cost more than what they paid.
As such they price the buffet accordingly - so that persons with big appetites will remain worthwhile serving.
Source
This provides a moral dilemma. If a buffet is better value because one has a big appetite then does it follow that persons like me are effectively sponging off of persons with smaller appetites? Am I hence making them pay for the appetites of persons like myself?
In a sense I conclude that it is so.
At the same time I also realize that there is more going on than just my voracious appetite.
Source
In essence, a portion of responsibility has to be borne by the restauranteur - even though such may not realize that s/he is a participant.
The thing is that the buffet system itself encourages eating practices that are both less healthy than optimal and also inflationarily burdensome upon the pockets of those with less of an appetite and inclination to eat as much.
This gives me pause - and I am presently inclined to believe that the World would be a better place if buffets no longer existed - to be replaced by more reasonably priced a la carte and set menus.
Perhaps I should stick with home cooking...
Source
If you found this post interesting and would like to share this with your followers and friends then a resteem is always appreciated.
If you have some feedback for me then feel free to share your views in comments. A civil conversation can go a long way.
Sincerely,
Previous Post: Getting Some Good Sushi in Malta
I love buffets because I love a variety of food. I've also been hit with the "let's split the bill" and have sometimes not so graciously declined the "deal" because of budget constraints or whatever reason.
Having been in the restaurant business with plenty of buffet style catering jobs, the overhead for the business owner is about the same. And after all the bills are paid really there is no profit in food to begin with. The money is in the drinks and the take home plates. So when it comes to buffets, enjoy. Eat up.
And if you're at a restaurant and people want to split the bill - consider splitting the food bill and letting the drinkers take care of their own tab.
Thank you @merej99, both for the up-vote and the interesting take on this matter. :c)
Ah yes. Establishments do tend to be less than subtle in their drinks prices That is a very good point.
I had not expected to hear that the overheads for two similarly thirsty but variously hungry persons would be that similar - but then again it is buffet. Again - thank you for weighing in. :cP
Oh and don't worry - I very much doubt that I'll stop enjoying buffets when I go in for such. :cP Good tip on separating food tabs from drinks tabs.
And its nice to see you! You've grown scarce. :c)
Welp socialism is based on principles that you see in eating/cooking.
It is no fun to eat alone. You want everyone at your table to be sated. Generally meals are not paid by every single person according to what they eat, unless you are eating out 3 times a day.
On buffets, restaurants make a good chunk of their money through drinks. There is a limit to how much you can eat (abuse the system) and it is easier to make a big pile of a few items instead of cooking on demand, The coordination of a la carte makes most of the price difference already (waiters, more cooks).
Thank you, @thatgermandude, both for your up-vote as well as your thought-provoking comment. :c)
Oh, quite agreed. Eating is best a social event - even if one can do it solo. Just - less so in a restaurant.
Now, one reason that I began reflecting upon this matter is because a person whom I know once mentioned that she doesn't like to go to buffets with another friend of mine - because this other friend is thin and has a much more conservative appetite 'and' makes her feel uncomfortable eating as much as she'd like to (I, incidentally, don't have that problem).
I had managed to overlook the drinks factor in determining the profitability of a meal - so thank you for pointing such out to me.
I also appreciate that 'many' buffet scenarios keep their costs low through limiting selection - and that in the grand scheme of things a person like me eating to satisfaction is not that much more costly than another thin person eating to satisfaction. :c) Yes, a la carte does involve more overheads.
It seems to me that the buffet scenario is much less of an issue than I previously thought - being much less troublesome than over-eating a la carte on a shared tab.
my man, I appreciate you taking my criticism not as me trying bash your ideas. I do see the similarities between the buffet and communism and I never really thought about it much until reading your article, so thanks for the thought provocation as well ;).
I am actually not a big fan of buffets, just because it is often food that is held warm, the only good buffets include stationary cooks who cook on demand :3.
The best kind of restaurant is where you get 3 different menus and that's it. It usually guarantees good quality and freshness of the ingredients. This used to be a thing in Germany that luckily has a comeback, even professional shitheads like Gordon Ramsay advocate this system, a huge a la carte offering is usually a give away sign of a bad restaurant.
Btw only poor people pay separately in Germany (like me :D). Most of the time you will see people paying the whole bill. Partly because of convinience partly because of the traditional sharing element associated with eating (See Thanksgiving).
So you could say I dont really advocate communism (buffet) although I see it merits, I also dont like when everybody has to pay for every grain of rice he ate (Capitalism) although I see the justice in it, I think it would ruin the mood if I need to make a contract about who eats what part of the turkey. I endorse traditional cooking and voluntaristic share of the meal (classic liberal socialism with a touch of conservatism). :)
I must admit that I'd been resisting the parallels drawn between menu types and socio-political systems. :cP More like it flew over my head the first time.
Its a novel comparison actually - and I see no merit in bashing such perspective.
The kinds of buffets that are kept warm tend to be the lower quality ones - particularly if its a slow day of business (less frequent replacements). Quite agreed that those including stationary cooks on the go tend to be better.
I am of two minds about menu variety necessarily being an indicator for poor quality - but I do agree that its easier to focus upon getting a narrower selection right and consistently so. :c)
You will find all sorts. Some insist on paying the tab while others prefer to 'go Dutch'. I'd agree that the personal economic considerations of the persons in question has a hand in determining such.
The only reason that I don't like linking communism with buffet is because communism itself has negative connotations. :c) Both communism and other terms need to undergo a period of detox so that they may exist independently of politically-expedient baggage that finds itself manifest in the most darnedest of ways.
Yeah, I mean it is a little funny how alot of the American liberty and anarcho movement is still buying everything of the cold war propaganda against socialism and communism. The USA abuses the terms freedom and liberty as much as socialism and communism were abused terms by the UDSSR and China.
To make one last statement as a food analogy: I will promote the way I cook and the way I want to eat, however that does not mean that I want to force people to like the things I cook or eat the way I think is best. You can have your stale buffet food or charge your friends for the food you give to them, maybe I don't want to be your friend then, but I don't want to imprison you or prevent your table culture from existing (by force).
'Grins'
You clearly haven't tried Okurama's buffet. ;c)
But yes I do understand that this is a matter of "To each his/her own".
And I'm not even going to get started on the ethical inconsistencies that we've seen this past couple of decades. :c/
Thank you again @thatgermandude. :c)