Being considerate toward everybody and everything is the ideal goal that everybody hopes to achieve. Though the idea of being considerate is different depending on the person so reaching that point in the world is impossible to achieve since there is no baseline for that, we have many competing ideas as to what that could be. Some people see being considerate as being thoughtful of other people but others will see it as a deeper meaning with being courteous toward all living things on Earth and their belongings. There are so many different ways to be considerate and the readings of David Foster Wallace, Jessica Mittford, and Caitlin Doughty all have underlying messages of how people need to be more aware of what they are doing. Each piece …show more content…
This is after he just gets done about talking about his own thoughts on the lobsters and how it is alright if people keep eating it. Now if he is fine with people eating lobsters and wants to keep eating animals on his own time why does he spend time writing this entire essay? This essay is filled with so many sensory details that the reader can feel such as the noise of the scuttling against the boiling pot with the lobster in it. He does this on purpose to bring to light something you may not think about or brush off as nothing is actually going against your morals. Wallace poses an interesting question in the conclusion of his essay by saying, “Do you think much about the (possible) moral status and (probable) suffering of the animals involved? If you do, what ethical convictions have you worked out that permit you not just to eat but to savor and enjoy flesh-based viands” (510). This is his whole purpose of writing this essay since this question alone brings you back through his entire essay and all the “insignificant” details he talked about and made you realize how significant they are in the amount of harm you may be bringing to the animal. This whole idea of awareness and making sure your actions line up with your morales is echoed in the writings of Jessica Mittford in her story The American Way of Death Revisited. Mittford opens the eyes of the reader to see what American’s see as a
3. What did further examination of Tiktaalik’s fins reveal about the creature and its’ lifestyle?
In his essay Consider the Lobster, it’s apparent what David Foster Wallace is trying to tell his audience: we should really think about the lobster’s point of view before cooking and eating it. Wallace uses multiple rhetorical strategies to get his point across, including pathos and ethos. His essay is very good in how it gets its point across, and how it forces even the largest lobster consumers to truly contemplate how the lobster might react being boiled alive. It brings up many controversial topics of animal rights that many people tend to avoid, especially people who are major carnivores. Wallace’s use of rhetorical strategies really gets the reader thinking, and thoroughly captures the argument of many vegetarians against the consumption of animals. Wallace captures the use of pathos in his essay and uses it in a way that is incredibly convincing to the reader. For example, he compares the Maine Lobster Festival to how a Nebraska Beef Festival could be, stating, “at which part of the festivities is watching trucks pull up and the live cattle get driven down the ramp and slaughtered right there…” (Wallace 700). Playing off of people’s natural tendency to feel bad for the cattle, he shows that the killing of lobster is, in reality, no different than the killing of cattle, but we treat it much differently. We tend to think that lobsters are different because they are less human than cows are, and, maybe to make us feel better about our senseless killing of an animal,
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.
However, then he goes into the history of the lobster. He shares fact after fact about how “Maine’s earliest lobster industry was based around a dozen seaside canneries in the 1840’s” (Wallace 55), and that “the name ‘lobster’ comes from the Old English loppestre” (Wallace 55). At first these facts are interesting, but upon rereading the article one may wonder, what does this have to do with the argument? The answer is, nothing. These facts are in no way essential to adding context to Wallace’s moral argument, but rhetorically they serve the purpose to distract and retain. If right after page one Wallace started criticizing eating lobster, he runs the risk of ostracizing some of his carnivorous audience, but by just narrating and sharing facts, he delays this argument and continues to capture the interest of readers as they wonder where he is going with this.
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.
A man should never go through an animal for its nutrients, when that animal receive all of its nutrients from plants. One man such, author Wendell Berry, wrote " The Pleasures of Eating," published in 2017, and he argues that every individual should be educated in what happens to their food before it becomes food. Many people are oblivious to what harmful things animals are put through in order to one day become our meal. Berry's intended audience is every single human being who eats meat, and even those who do not. I know this because Berry mentions the importance of individuals understanding where their meat comes from and why they should not let animals be treated this way. Berry assumes that individuals would not like to be treated that way, so why should animals be treated this way. Berry's purpose in this piece is to inform all humans of what inhumane things are done to animals in order to provide as one of our temporary fills. Berry's writing is somewhat credible and valuable because he is currently a farmer and currently a writer, he gives personal viewpoints and few examples, and he provides emotional statements about animal cruelty.
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.
In the essay “Consider the Lobster”, David Foster Wallace communicates his experience in the Main Lobster Festival as a writer for a food magazine called “Gourmet”. In this essay, he explores the impact the festival had on him as he tries to question the morals of eating lobsters. Wallace initially makes it seem as the festival is a place of fun and celebration as he describes the entertainment: concerts, carnival rides, lobster-themed food, lobster-themed clothes, and lobster-themed toys (50). In spite of that, he changes his attitude as he observes that the festival is actually promoting cruelty to animals and holds a long discussion whether or not lobsters can actually feel pain. Through the use of his language and description, Wallace convinces the audience as he claims to persuade the reader to stop eating lobsters, but he doesn’t explicitly say so at any point in the essay.
Wallace’s use of changing viewpoints adds to what he originally wants to do, which is to give the reader a chance to pick which side of the argument they want to be on. The author not only gives the reader different views, but he also changes his tone throughout the piece. By adding dynamic shifts in his writing, he includes the reader and gives a better feel for what this article is really about. This sentence stands out due to the fact that Wallace talks about the positive aspects of what occurs during the festival throughout the beginning of the article. This includes not only the amount of lobster that is being
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 conducting a rhetorical analysis of the two articles, "Joel Salatin: How to Eat Animals and Respect Them, Too" by Madeline Ostrander and "Humane Meat? No Such Thing" by Sunaura Taylor, both articles stand in stark contrast in terms of the viewpoints of meat that they present. In order to gain a better understanding of these viewpoints, it's important to understand the persuasive techniques that both authors use in the article for the reader. More specifically, the ethos, pathos, and logos that they employ, as well the way in which the evidence and support is presented will further elucidate upon the arguments that appear in both articles.
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.
To fully understand the technological and social developments associated with Maine’s lobstering industry, it is first essential to understand the anatomy of the lobster. Scientifically classified as Homarus americanus, the Maine lobster is a crustacean native to the rocky coastal waters of Maine which is the most northern state on the east coast of the United States of America. While many types of aquatic creatures consume baby lobsters, humans are the main predators of fully developed lobsters.
When I was younger I used to love crab legs. Everytime my mom would ask me if I wanted to go out to eat and where I wanted to go she always knew I would say Red Lobster. It didn’t have to be a nice occasion or anything special. I could have just finished a baseball game and have a pallet of dirt on my uniform and I still wouldn’t care. I wouldn’t care how people felt about it or if I looked dirty. I would do anything to get some nice red crab legs. This all changed on one day when my grandparents and I went out to eat.
In his essay “Consider the Lobster”, David Wallace focuses on a long simmering debate of lobster killing for human pleasure. This article, published in Gourmet magazine in 2004 begins with the author participating at the annual Maine Lobster Festival, where significant controversy surrounding morality and ethical duties are raised. The author chose to attend this venue precisely for these issues and to raise a discussion on a topic discarded by participants and Gourmet’s audience. The article centers around human eating experience at the lobster’s expense by cooking it alive; leading to lobsters feeling debilitating pain. Whether this is true or not, this is the crux of Wallace’s intention. Rather than focus on pain receptivity between vertebrate and invertebrate creatures, Wallace maintains a soft stance by choosing to be influenced by personal belief. By ignoring the complex dynamics of pain receptivity in invertebrate animals, Wallace proposes arguments bringing the issue to attention but balks by making his message appear the topic can be delayed or neglected in pursuit of human pleasure.