Analysing Moral and Ethical Issues in Queen V. Dudley and Stephens.

In Consider The Lobster, David Foster Wallace raises an ethical question: “Is it right to boil a sentient creature alive just for our gustatory pleasure?” However, this essay is not to provide a definite answer to this question but lets the readers come up with their own answers. Wallace uses rhetorical strategies such as comparison, imagery, and questions to make the audiences think deep about the moral lens of consuming lobsters.

Everyone has an opinion when it comes to animals being killed and eaten. If a person agrees or not is completely their own opinion and will not be the focus of the essay. David Wallace’s essay “ Consider the Lobster,” is used to address perspectives of varying opinions while trying to persuade the reader. The author accomplishes this throughout the essay through the excellent use of multiple rhetorical techniques. Rhetorical devices such as ethos, lothos and pathos are all used in the essay to convey the author's opinion and try to convince the reader to choose a side.

Jan Narveson’s primary argument of feeding the hungry being morally optional under most circumstances is represented in his piece “Feeding the Hungry” through many points, but the two most important come early in the piece. Those two points being the difference between justice, as well as the difference between killing someone and letting them die.

the public can put its trust ad faith in but this time it fell apart

To apply utilitarianism to this ethical controversy one has to evaluate which option would benefit society

According to Scruton, “Eating animals has become a test case for moral theory in Western societies,” and he believes that a moral life is set on three pillars: virtue, duty, value piety. Foer uses fishes and dogs, for example, in Eating Animals: people slam gaffs into fish, but no one in their right mind would do such a thing to a dog. Foer also mentions that fish are out there in the water doing what fish do, and dogs are with us. Dogs are our companions, and with that, we care about the things that are near and dear to us. In, “Consider the Lobster,” Wallace asks, “Is it all right to boil a sentient creature alive just for our gustatory pleasure?” Is it a personal choice to do so? PETA, of course, says no. Dick from the Maine Lobster Festival (MLF) argues that lobsters do not have the part of the brain that receives pain, which is a false statement anyhow. Goodrich (1969) says that a human’s life is worth so much more than an animal’s life. No matter how many animals there are, one human life is worth more.

Exhibit 1 gives us an overview of each of the properties, such as the gross purchase price, the depreciable base, estimated sales prices, the amount of the first mortgage and so forth. These assumptions are significant to the calculations used throughout the entire case.

An example of this is in the case of R v Dudley and Stephens (1884), where Dudley, Stephens, and Brookes ate the cabin boy Parker, after they were shipwrecked for 24 days at sea. Although this act maximised utility for the most people, Parker’s rights were infringed upon as he did not agree to being killed and eaten. Therefore when we add up the pain and pleasures of all those affected we may end up infringing someone’s rights. The act that maximises utility may cause unhappiness and misery for the minority.

The gluttonous lords of the land capture those who are unable to defend themselves, boil the captives alive, and then feast on their flesh. Could this be the plot of some new summer blockbuster? It could be, in fact, but for now we will focus on how this depiction of events compares to David Foster Wallace’s essay, “Consider the Lobster,” which starts as a review of the Maine Lobster Festival, but soon morphs into an indictment of not only the conventions of lobster preparation, but also the entire idea of having an animal killed for one’s own consumption. Wallace shows great skill in establishing ethos. In the essay, he succeeds in snaring a receptive audience by laying out a well-baited trap for an

In Consider the Lobster by David Foster Wallace, the author questions why is it ok "to boil a sentient creature alive just for our gustatory pleasure?"(Wallace, 60). Wallace questions why people, those who eat the lobsters, find it morally and ethically correct to eat a sentient being that has been tortured. Wallace uses the lobster to convey the picture of a sentient creature being tortured before its consumption, through this he explains the preferences of the people who eat these creatures and how their morals and ethics have been redefined to find the process acceptable. This paper will discuss Wallace 's examination of his question and how the solution relates to preference, morals, and ethics. While on the surface the essay is about why those eating lobster find it alright to torture the creature first before consuming it, what the author is really exploring is humans "preferring" not to cross paths with moral problems like torture, causing ethical practices to progress the avoidance and less urgency of these moral problems.

In order to support the right answer to crucial moral problems, certain philosophers use theory. Theory is an abstract statement formulated to predict, explain, or describe the relationships among concepts or events. Theory is developed and tested by observations and research, using factual data. I’m currently studying the following theories: Intuitionism, Egoism, Utilitarianism, Divine Command Theory, Virtue Ethics, Cultural Relativism, Moral Nihilism, Ethics of Caring, Kantian Ethics and Social Contract Theory. I’ve read each one of them and have noticed their flaws. I was impressed with utilitarianism, which shows the most logically believed theory. I have no doubt utilitarianism is the best moral theory. I chose to defend utilitarianism because it has a major influence on the types of assessment methods. As a health care giver, I believe utilitarianism will be useful in deontological concerns and to evaluate alternative solutions in the health care system. Giving an overall explanation of utilitarianism, defining and contracting act utilitarian and rule utilitarian, and listing some reasons will prove that utilitarianism is the best theory yet.

The authority supporting this view can be derived for the case of Hobbs v Winchester Corporation [1910] where the butcher was guilty because the meat he tried to sell was unfit for human consumptions.

Within the battle of opposing opinions about living a carnivorous lifestyle, there’s the underlying battle of judgment in human nature. We, as humans, have the conscious ability to choose a moral right or wrong. According to Scruton, “it is the residue of religion in us all,” that determines what is moral right and wrong (A carnivore’s Credo 259). This causes the essay to become applicable to every area of life where some moral controversy is present. There is no black and white anymore. The argument is not about what Scruton calls eating versus feeding or whether it's virtuous or vicious. There is a definite gray area. This calls for people to reconsider every action before it is even made. There is no need to “abandon habits” when they can simply be “remoralized” (A Carnivore’s Credo 264). In this example of carnivore vs vegetarian, neither one is more correct than the other. There merely is now an open discussion about what is truly moral.

Dicey named ‘conventions’ the non-legal rules that regulate the way legal rules are applied . Prerogative powers are legal powers held by the crown but exercised by government without the authority from parliament. There is no doubt about their importance to the British constitution but their unwritten nature has caused disputes regarding their extent. Therefore some believe that conventions and prerogative powers should be codified. This could be in legal or non-legal form. Codification might clarify their existence and extent; neither form however will generate a more effective constitution.

Question Number or Title: It has been consistently argued that the judiciary in England and Wales is not reflective of society. Critically consider the explanations for the lack of diversity within the judiciary and the extent to which government legislation and initiatives have tried to increase diversity within the judiciary?