Consider The Lobster Research Paper

“For most humans, especially for those in modern urban and suburban communities, the most direct form or contact with non-human animals is at meal time: we eat them. This simple fact is the key to what each one of us can do about changing these attitudes. The use and abuse of animals raised for food far exceeds, in sheer numbers of animals affected, any other kind of mistreatment” (Coats). The most effective method to stop this cruelty is to learn about where the meat comes from, by supporting the organic and family farms which will ultimately lead to the reducing the amount of animals that have to suffer (PETA). More than 95 percent of animal abuse in America occurs in the meat packing industry (Harper & Low). Animals suffer an unimaginable amount, they are raised to be killed, then bought and then consumed. In order to help fight back against the abuse, there needs to be a cut back on the amount of meat or poultry that is consumed. Seriously consider the option of becoming a vegetarian; by not eating meat, you completely stop supporting animal

As humanity becomes more civilized, many of us perceive that eating livestock is morally incorrect, but aren’t we are designed to be an omnivore? Our teeth and digestive system serve the purpose of breaking down animal and plant foods and to bring these important nutrients to every part of the body. Despite the fact that, in 2011, U.S. meat and poultry production reached more than 92.3 billion pounds, the ethic of killing and eating animals as well as the concern of the environmental burden caused by the production of meats is debatable. However, animal based diet is necessary for the human body to function properly and we can choose the meat produced from environmentally sustainable farms to avoid the moral ambiguity.

Meat has been a staple food in the diet of mankind since the early ages of civilization. In the article “Is Any Meat Good to Eat?” by Sarah Boesveld, she interviews author Jonathan Safran to share his opinion on eating meat and factory farming. He believes that “...if [people] just ate according to the values they already have, then factory farming would disappear.” Whether or not people realize the sources from which meat in modern day society comes from, they cannot deny the fact that meat is delectable. Sadly, many people who are aware of where their meat comes from will argue that it is unethical to eat meat that is grown purely to satisfy the hunger of people. The ethics of eating meat should not be considered because of the extreme

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

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.

Do you know that Maine is famous for lobsters because it harvests the majority of lobsters in the United States? The population reached to 1.336 million people living in the state of Maine. And the total area of Maine is 35,385 square miles, also known as the biggest state with the most land from the original 13 colonies.

Many people who think that the way that we treat animals in the process of raising those for human consumption are wrong never stop, to think what they can do to stop this problem from further occurring. Furthermore, they make impassioned calls for more “humanely” raised meat. Instead to soothe their consciences they shop for “free range” meat, and eggs; which has no importance. Even if an animal is raised ‘free range” it still lives s life of pain and suffering that all ends with a butcher’s knife. Although many know that over 53 billion land animals are slaughtered each year for human utilization they still tend to eat this meat with no problem. The simple explanation is that many don’t care what happens to animals as long as they are eating and healthy. If they did care then they would what could be a difficult choice; to go without eating meat and selling it in any form.

Novelist David Foster Wallace, in his Gourmet magazine essay, “Consider the Lobster,” explains to his readers that they should consider the lobster’s point of view. In his essay, Wallace does not want to persuade his readers, but instead present both sides of the argument. Wallace’s purpose is to raise awareness and to question the concept of the Maine Lobster Festival, which is one of the “best food festivals in the world,” according to CNN. Also, there is the need to discuss its relevance to the potential number of violations from animal rights groups, like PETA. The discussion of animal rights is a very controversial topic, since humans are on the top of the food chain as the major carnivores of the world. Throughout the essay, Wallace develops

As humans, we make decisions based on our comfort levels, choosing one thing over another. We prefer to not think about the way animals are killed or tortured, just to eat and enjoy them. We prefer to believe lobsters don't feel pain, and ignore how they cling to containers’ sides as they are being boiled alive. We prefer to choose our lobsters and watch them die, as opposed to choosing our cows and watch them be slaughtered. We choose which creatures to empathize with, and which to neglect. Wallace admits he cant justify these preferences we all have without sounding selfish towards the end of the essay. According to David Wallace, “the whole animal-cruelty-and-eating issue is not just complex, it is also uncomfortable.” This paper presents the moral complications of animal cruelty and the unclarity of it

​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.

After the guilt sets in from eating for the sake of pleasure, Scruton brings forth a multitude of facts and makes an effort to appeal to ethos. To do this, he addresses the benefits of small-scale livestock farming, the use of animals in scientific experimentation, and the actions taken against animals that promote harm. This flood of ethical evidence continues to leave readers wondering if Scruton is a vegetarian himself.

We are a nation of meat eaters. We are socialized from a young age to consume high levels of animal products. This deeply ingrained meat-eating tradition is a big part of the American standard diet. A visit to the local grocery store shows that there is no shortage of animal products. Isle by isle you see a plethora of meats, neatly packed and ready to be cooked, dairy products neatly shelved, and even candies that contain animal by-products. This is an omnivore’s utopia, allowing for a lifestyle that involves the overconsumption of meats and animal by-products. The rampant meat industry has managed to condition people to disassociate the meats in our grocery markets and the animals from which they came. Most people have become unaware omnivores, consuming whatever meats are available to them. This shift of moral degradation is evident in how we process and consume our meats. We have become a selfish society that values our own convenience and affordability of meat rather than the consideration of the animal. This begs the question, is eating meat inherently wrong and should we forbid meat consumption under any and all circumstances? To fully address this issue, we must first define the moral status of animals. So, are animals equal to humans in worth and value and should they receive similar treatment?

Can it be morally permissible to eat meat when plant-based foods are available? In this paper my aim is it to explain why this is morally wrong to do. One problem with eating meat is humans are putting animals in unnecessary pain. Another problem is that the majority of our environmental destruction on our planet is due to agriculture. Philosophers Peter Singer and Tom Regan, both back up this view with their own arguments.

What is the ideal doneness of a burger? Some may claim that well-done is the best, others may like medium-rare. While this is one of the most common questions asked in regards to meat-eating, there is an even more important one that everyone should be asking. What are the ethical implications of eating meat? This oft-debated question has been obscured, especially in recent years, by the outcry for the humane treatment of animals being raised for food. There have been many recent documentaries, books, and debates about how these animals sometimes never see sunlight before they are slaughtered, among many other abusive treatments. In his essay, “Animal, Vegetable, Miserable,” Gary Steiner raises this issue of the morality of meat-eating and challenges the readers to question their own views on this topic. Regardless of the morality of eating meat or using animal products, Steiner does not support his claim strongly enough to be accepted.