First Draft:

In David Foster Wallace’s Consider the Lobster, the question of animal suffering is examined within the context of a lobster. Wallace challenges his readers to ponder the theory that killing animals for our benefit is still a concept of inflicting pain on another living being. which brings up an ethical debate on if eating meat is in fact an actual wrong-doing. Often times, people believe that only decisions directly impacting other people can have moral implications. However, many people for instance, vegetarians, understand that human beings are not the only creatures that can suffer and/or feel pain, hence their reasoning for their dietary restrictions. Although they may not have the capacity to form cognitive reasoning or conceptual abilities, animals too, have the capacity to feel pain, which should be enough to treat them ethically. Unfortunately, the debate is not as simple as it seemed, especially when I was first considering the lobster. Wallace, as neither a culinary expert or has any culinary expertise in the effects of Maine’s lobster festival on tourism or economy, can only make statements about the discomfort that he receives from listening to what sounds like the suffering of the lobsters as they are being boiled alive, and calls on his audience to just merely consider how the lobster may be feeling as they get cooked. Without in depth knowledge of every side of a moral debate and the moral implications of every decision, Wallace is correct when saying “there are limits to what even interested persons can ask of each other.” Although an ethical debate may have high levels of interest and people that have strong beliefs in both sides, the true implications of acting one way or another, or the reasonings behind those actions sometimes will not, or cannot, be known. Asking a person with a strong moral view to explain themselves is reasonable, but majority of the time their perspective of a moral view is biased and simply based on an emotion, such as the discomfort of watching a lobster suffer, rather than facts or philosophy.

Final Draft:

Consider the Human

In David Foster Wallace’s “Consider the Lobster”, the question of animal suffering is examined within the context of a lobster. He challenges his readers to ponder the theory that killing animals for our benefit is still a concept of inflicting pain on another living being. Wallace emphasizes his belief that animals feel pain by stating “it takes a lot of intellectual gymnastics and behaviorist hairsplitting not to see struggling, thrashing, and lid-clattering as just such pain behavior” (Wallace 5). This argues that it is morally incorrect to kill the animals we, as in human beings, make into appetizing food. It brings up ethical debates on if eating meat is in fact an actual wrongdoing. Often times, people believe that decisions only directly impacting other people can have moral implications. However, many people, such as vegetarians, have realized that human beings are not the only creatures that can suffer painful deaths, hence their reasoning for their dietary restrictions. Although they may not have the capabilities to communicate their cognitive reasoning or conceptual abilities, animals still have the capacity to feel pain. Many people use this as an argument on whether or not we treat animals ethically. Unfortunately, the debate is not as simple as it seems, especially when I was first started to consider the lobster. Wallace is not a culinary expert nor does he have any culinary expertise in the effects of Maine’s lobster festival on tourism or economy. He can only infer and make claims about the discomfort that he receives from listening to what sounds like the suffering of the lobsters as they are being boiled alive. He calls on his audience to just merely consider how the lobster may be feeling as they get cooked. Without in depth knowledge of every side of a moral debate and the moral implications of every decision, Wallace is correct when saying “there are limits to what even interested persons can ask of each other.” Although an ethical debate may have high levels of interest and people that have strong beliefs in both sides, the true implications of acting one way or another, or the reasonings behind those actions sometimes will not, or cannot, be known. Asking a person with a strong moral view to explain themselves is reasonable, but majority of the time their perspective of a moral view is biased and simply based on an emotion, such as the discomfort of watching a lobster suffer, rather than facts or philosophy. It is highly unlikely, for David Foster Wallace, humans will continue to eat meat and be carnivores because it is in our DNA and cultures, and for whether or not animals can feel pain? Prey is prey and death is of the inevitable; Animals must accept their fate of death, the same way humans have to.  

In the article, “Animals Like Us”, by Hal Herzog writes about a woman named Judith Black, who from the adolescent age of twelve years old considered herself to be a vegetarian. Until one day, fifteen years later, her “moral high ground went down the drain” (Herzog). She ate meat. Through the realization of eating meat again, Black enjoys it so much that, “Within a week, she was chowing down on cheeseburgers” (Herzog). Much like animals in the wild, humans have an innate desire to supply themselves with nutrients. It is natural for humans to feed on meat. This explains how “the ranks of ex-vegetarians, a club that outnumbers current vegetarians in the United States by a ratio of three to one”(Herzog). I don’t view Black’s decision to go against her prior dietary restrictions as a negative because being a carnivore is in her blood, it’s human nature. In fact, I applaud her for going as long as she did without meat, she showed a level of self-discipline that I don’t know most adults, nevermind from the mind of a twelve year old would have. I know from the perspective of being a college student, I would feel lost if I were to have to go the dining hall and watch as others ate meat while I sat there everyday without eating meat. To Wallace, I believe at some point it becomes an internal conflict that we have to have with ourselves about what is best for our respective selves. If everyone is at least conscious about the things they eat, we have done our job as humans to at least take into account and give thanks to the animals that we eat.

Caitlin Doughty is the founder of the Order of the Good Death. She works closely with a group of professionals involved in the funeral services industry. On a daily basis, she is surrounded by dead bodies and grieving loved ones. Her years of experience aided in the formation of her passion and beliefs. In A Mortician Talks Openly About Death, And Wants You Too, she talks about how “[she] is trying to reform how we think about the deaths of loved ones” (Doughty). Death is a part of everyone’s life, at some point, that is inevitable. Immortality is purely a fictional concept that humans have devised. All living things, including animals and humans, will die. In nature, carnivores must kill in order to survive. It is the only way they would be able to grow sufficiently. They, however, do not face moral conflicts on the pain of their prey. Human beings play a sort of institutionalized role in a food web. We must kill in order to be able survive, without regard to the pain our food felt. Crocodiles rip limbs off, lions attack live gazelles and sharks bite anything in their path. Pain is factor not taken into consideration in nature. Although I have taken into account that humans have the capacity to acknowledge morals and ethics, it does not mean we have to abide by them. I believe that is what separates humans from the rest of nature, we have the ability to have free will and make judgements on what each individual person would like to do. This is the reason why there are people who choose to be vegetarians, vegans, pascatelians and so on because humans make the conscious effort to make these actions everyday.

I think that David Foster Wallace’s intentions when writing, “Consider the Lobster” were to do, like any other piece of literature, which is to just provoke the mind. I don’t believe Wallace wants to put an end to the masses eating lobster or any other meat, but he wants to keep a lasting effect on how the reader will feel the next time he or she sits down to have a meal; that maybe, just maybe, the person will become more conscious when it comes to eating. I have come to understanding of Wallace’s points in his essay, and I offer to raise him this perspective of this matter: From the dawn of time, humans have derived from animals, we have taken many steps mentally as a species, however,  physically we share many traits with animals. In addition, the original humans, cavemen, learned by watching other animals stalk and kill their prey and I believe subconsciously we resort back to these very characteristics when it is time to eat. This is why I believe humans don’t sit down every meal and think about the journey its chicken took before landing on their plate. I do believe we have the capacity and are fully capable enough to do these actions, but we, sometimes, cannot help ourselves because we are wired to eat and not be eaten.

 

Works Cited

Doughty. Caitlin. “A Mortician Talks Openly About Death, And Wants You To, Too.” NPR Books. Accessed 3 November 2018.

Herzog. Hal. “Animals Like Us.” UNEPortfolio. Project 3 Archive. Accessed 10 November 2018.

Foster Wallace. David. “Consider the Lobster.” UNEPortfolio. Project 3 Archive. Accessed 14 November 2018.