Kant And John Stuart Mill

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.

Personally, I am sympathetic to Paul Taylor’s idea that people should respect for every living organism. From his book “Respect for Nature”, he proposes a definition of environmental ethics called Biocentric Individualism. It basically means that humans are not superior to any living organisms. Humans are a part of nature, so humans should have moral relations and connections with every living organism in the world. Thus, human’s obligations, actions and responsibilities should be often determined with respect to those relations and connections. Moreover, he suggests that every organism has intrinsic value such as unique biological functions or natural goals. To maintain a good natural system, organisms have to contribute and function together. Hence, all organisms should have equal inherent worth.

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.

The story “lord of the flies’’ by William Golding, the novel correlates to the philosophical views of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. John Locke was an English philosopher that surmised man's natural moral compass would point towards good, Locke's philosophical writings stated “ that individuals in a state of nature would have stronger moral limits on their actions. Essentially, Locke thought that our human nature was characterized by reason and tolerance. People, Locke believed, were basically good’’ ( Locke and Hobbes Overview 2). John Locke thought if people were given no rules they would make a paradise, flourishing in law, order, and structure, Thomas Hobbes believed people were naturally cruel and chaotic, with a need of a strong ruler to make decisions. Hobbes stated, “Who felt that mankind was inherently evil and required a strong central authority to ward off this inclination toward an immoral behavior, Locke believed that human nature allowed men to be selfish’’( Locke and Hobbes Overview 2 ). Thomas Hobbes believed a strong iron-fisted ruler was needed for the safety and well being of a society. The ideals of man in a natural state, follow Thomas Hobbes philosophical view represented through Jack's brutish and monarch like attitude which lead to them living in a dystopian 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.

What is really ethical? What is right? What is wrong? What are the factors involved in making the distinction between killing and letting die? What is the difference between killing one to save five and leaving one to die while rescuing five? Philippa Foot created a thought experiment that presents two cases known as Rescue I and Rescue II. In these cases, one must create a dissimilarity between doing and allowing. They must ask themselves what would be the moral thing to do. Philosophers have tried to explain the concept of morals and ethics and create systems to relate the two. John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant are both two of these kind of philosophers. They express conditions on morality which are then applied to an ethical position. These conditions both explained what they believed is right and wrong and who benefits from what, but they are very different. Mill and Kant’s ethical positions foil one another and are very necessary when being applied to Foot’s thought experiment. This begs the question if you will do things to save the greatest number, or if you would do things strictly because it feels right. In Rescue I and Rescue II, Mill would provide happiness for the 5 individuals, while Kant would give life to whomever needed it simply because of his “good will.”

The matters pertaining the animal rights and their suffering for the sake of harvesting their flesh have been an issue with a variety of perspectives. Puppies, Pigs and People, a piece by Alastair Norcross, bring to question the treatment towards livestock and what is immoral about the process. The argument proclaims that since we (humans) do not require meat as part of our diet then the exploit of raising animals for consumption (humanly or not) is immoral. On a counter side of the argument, a philosopher, Carl Cohen, states in his work that animals possess no moral rights thus we have the option to eat them despite if it is immoral or not. In the case of who I believe offers the most optimum solution, I believe Cohen is the most accurate in his summation of animal’s roles in our world. I will argue that people have no obligation to abstain from eating animals, but morally speaking animals should be kept in humane living conditions in order for it to meet our obligations towards these creatures.

In Consider the Lobster David Foster Wallace discusses the morality behind consuming Lobster. He opens this reading by discussing the Maine Lobster Festival where over 25,000 pounds of fresh-caught lobster are consumed each year and continues with Maine’s lobster industry. Wallace advances by defining the word lobster and points out that lobsters are basically giant sea-insects. He also goes on to explain the history of the lobster, describing how up

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.

It is more virtuous to eat healthy foods, which will allow you to live longer with less illness; it will also be better for the environment. Living sustainably will allow future generations to have the naturally occurring resources and avoid having to experience the long-term effects of depleted resources and petro-agriculture. A virtue ethicist may also use gluttony as a vice, using too much of the environment’s resources, degrading the ecosystem in order to develop technological advances and cultural ambition that may cause long term societal harm. It is more moral to use the land in moderation, as it is necessary than it is to turn food and land into a commodity in order to make a profit at the expense of the environment and poor

Animals are bread forcibly, then nourished with specific intent of managing fat content, meat flavor, and healthiness, each of which discounts the Utilitarian claim that nature makes our carnivorous methods ethically permissible. Secondly, and perhaps more fundamentally, such a claim is in direct contradiction to the Utilitarian tenet that each individual has equal value regardless of identity or stature. Because humans could be sufficiently nourished without the killing of animals, it cannot be argued that the consequence of causing death to an animal is equivalent or less substantial than that of feeding a man.

Throughout history morality has been a topic of intense debate. Innumerable thinkers have devoted immense amounts of time and energy to the formulation of various ethical theories intended to assist humans in their daily lives. These theories set out guidelines which help to determine the rightness or wrongness of any given action and can therefore illuminate which choice would be morally beneficial. And while many of these theories differ substantially, most have at least one common underlying principle, namely that humans deserve to be treated with a certain level of respect. This idea comes from the belief that all humans have interests which are significant enough to be considered, hence no one should impede another

In Peter Singer’s article All Animals Are Equal (Winston 29-36), Singer talks about the point of view Jeremy Bentham had on the capacity to suffer, going into Bentham’s idea on what humans would do with non-human animals in order to satisfy our taste for their flesh. That in order to have meat products on the table at an affordable price to the population of that area, we must treat non-human animals like machines, enclosing them in unsuitable conditions for their entire life (p. 33).

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.

Whether it be because of religion, culture, or personal choice, millions of people worldwide do not eat meat, and the majority of the population, the omnivores, often ridicule these people, the vegetarians, for their choices. This has sadly created a divide between thousands of people, however the cause of this separation is simple. One side, whether it be the omnivores or the vegetarians, feels the need to impose its choices onto the other side. Both sides are at fault here, as the omnivores tell the vegetarians that they cannot get proper nutrients from a plant-based diet, and the vegetarians try to tell the omnivores that they are torturing animals by killing them for food. The omnivores are wrong because, while it does require careful planning, vegetarians can easily get the nutrients they need, and the vegetarians are hypocritical because, as the article will show, farming kills thousands of creatures.