"The squab's head was also served, severed. It's (sic) cloudy eyes looking up, blind like justice, judging those who feasted on its tender body.
And what might it judge? The question of whether a $5,500 dinner is ever worth it has two main components. The first is literally, does what you get for $5,500 warrant the price tag? The second, infinitely more important than the first, is whether a dinner that costs $5,500 is morally permissible."
Ugh - I hate this kind of writing. Would drinking celebrated vintage wine, getting floor seats at an important ball game, flying first class, buying artwork, wearing designer clothing, or driving a sports car be "morally permissible?" All of those can and often do easily cost much more than $5,500. Should nobody ever drive a very high-end luxury car? Should luxury watchmakers not exist? Nobody writes an article questioning whether getting floor seats at the Warriors' game is "Fool's Gold" or immoral because there's a big opportunity cost that could save the world. C'mon, this is lazy "journalism," and parsing out the value or "permissibility" of these kinds of things is stupid, and trying to get philosophical about it doesn't excuse it from being extremely banal.
The title "Fool's Gold" and implying the metaphorical bittersweetness of it all with the chocolate dessert seem rather judging. If people enjoy it, the market will bear it, and it's not harmful to others, what's wrong with that? For the record, I heard about this event but didn't think it would be worth it. But I didn't go around musing about the right for it to exist.