Plato's allegory of the cave depicted people that are chained to a bench facing the wall watching the shadow reflected from the fire behind them. They are unable to escape the cave to venture outside to bask in the sun. These people spent their whole lives watching the shadows, believing that the shadow is the truth and only truth. One day, a person managed to escape the chain and ventured outside the cave. He experienced new and enlighten views and ideas about the world. He then returned to the cave to spread the knowledge he gained, but his peers rejected him and refused to listen. They are resistant to all changes or different point of views that are introduced to them. In “Consider the Lobster”, David Foster Wallace poses the morality questions of, it is right to eat lobsters? What allow the people who eats lobster to forget about the whole moral issue? Finally, what conflicting views regarding animal consumption are represented.
The question regarding the morality involving eating lobster is brought up through several stages. First David Foster Wallace points out that lobsters do in fact feel pain, they “have nociceptors, as well as invertebrate versions of the prostaglandins and major neurotransmitters via which our own brain register pain”(Wallace, 7). This point challenges the view of many lobster-enthusiasts about how “there's a part of the brain in people and animal that lets us feel pain, and lobsters' brains don't have this part”(Wallace, 4). Although this defense is a valid mitigating factor for some people, one cannot help but believe that most lobster-enthusiasts are well aware that the lobsters do feel pain, from the fact that during the preparation process, “some cooks … leave the kitchen .. and wa...
... middle of paper ...
... (Wallace, 8). They realized that considering animals as less important is morally wrong, but still want to keep eating them. This third groups struggle among setting themselves free from the cave, venturing outside and experience uncharted worlds or stay in the cave with the majority and safety of familiarity.
David Foster Wallace presented evidences for his questions regarding lobsters consumption through disproving the theory that lobster do not feel pains by providing scientific and observable proofs about lobsters' anatomy and behaviors. He discussed why people chose to ignore the moral questions of animal consumption by showing that people prefer familiarity over uncertainty and they do not like to discuss uncomfortable issues. Finally, he defined the roles of the three sides involving animal consumption and related them to Plato's allegory of the cave.
At the end of his article, he explains, “I believe animals are less morally important than human beings; and when it comes to defending such a belief, even to myself, I have to acknowledge that (a) I have an obvious selfish interest in this belief, since I like to eat certain kinds of animals and want to be able to keep doing it, and (b) I have not succeeded in working out any sort of personal ethical system in which the belief is truly defensible instead of just selfishly convenient.” (64) Because Wallace does not state his open opinion, one may argue his article is less persuasive. Wallace's approach to persuade the readers differs from most due to his abundance of information he presents on both sides of the topic. Although Wallace states both sides of the debate, instead of solely focusing on his opinion, he gives the reader an opportunity to make an educated decision based on the facts. With this method the reader is able to not form automatic bias, and establish a stronger foundation of their
The documentary Blackfish directed by Gabriela Cowperthwaite, leaves the viewer with many different emotions. This documentary follows the life of Tilikum, a captured killer whale who is forced to preform for SeaLand. The director uses different interviews from people who have worked with Tilikum or have seen him attack people during the shows. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or OSHA, has said that swimming with and training killer whales is not safe at all and should not be done. They believe it is a very high risk to the human working with the whale.
The lobsters are complex creatures, as David Foster Wallace explains in the essay, and the people that are going to the festival are making this complex creature so easy to kill. Wallace is able to validate this argument by using their complexity of life and the simplicity of their death to show the paradox that the festival has created explaining, “Taxonomically speaking, a lobster is a marine crustacean of the family Homaridae, characterized by five pairs of jointed legs, the first pair terminating in large pincerish claws used for subduing prey” (Wallace 55). Then later explaining, “Be apprised, though, that the Main Eating Tent’s suppers come in Styrofoam trays, and the soft drinks are iceless and flat” (Wallace 55). This paradox that Wallace brings to the attention to his audience show that these articulate and graceful creatures are being disgraced by the festival goers by being served on Styrofoam trays and served with unappealing beverages. It is no coincidence that two things that are really explained is the anatomy of the lobster and how complex the makeup of the lifeform is and the simplicity of the death of the lobster. By explaining these two things in depth, he is able to show how ridiculous and unfair he feels that killing and eating the lobster is. Wallace also humanizes the lobster to bring the situation into a perspective that
When settlers first came to America, lobster was considered a poor man’s food. The lobsters were so abundant at that time that many people felt that they were competing with them for space on the shore. The settlers felt that the lobster had no nutritional value. At that time both Native Americans and settlers used the lobster as fertilizer for their fields and as bait to catch other fish. Lobster was so disdained that it was given to prisoners, indentured servants, and children. This was such a common practice that in Massachusetts many servants and prisoners had it put into their contract that they could not be fed lobster more than two times a week.
"Consider the Lobster" an issue of Gourmet magazine, this reviews the 2003 Maine Lobster Festival. The essay is concerned with the ethics of boiling a creature alive in order to enhance the consumer's pleasure. The author David Foster Wallace of "Consider the Lobster” was an award-winning American novelist. Wallace wrote "Consider the Lobster” but not for the intended audience of gourmet readers .The purpose of the article to informal reader of the good thing Maine Lobster Festival had to offer. However, he turn it into question moral aspects of boiling lobsters.
In his article The Modern Hunter-Gatherer, Michael Pollan recounts the events that took place during his first hunting trip. Both during and after the hunt, Pollan struggles with an array of emotions that he conveys directly with his audience. From this struggle, a moral complication is formed regarding the direct relationship of death between humans and animals. By not giving a direct answer regarding the question he introduces of whether animals and humans experience death in the same way, Pollan leaves his text open to interpretation which ultimately forces his audience to view hunting through a more challenging, introspective lens.
In which he describes the encounter between a man and a mouse, consequently, the writer determinates that there is certain connection between them, and that the mouse has also capacity to have thoughts, feel love and compassion. The connection between them is compared “a child of God” and the “holy creature” (Steiner 846). The writer concludes that as conscious beings, both individuals have the same level of dignity, therefore, the use of animals as food is considered an “unforgiveable”
The state of Maine is a huge tourist spot known for it’s rocky coastline and seafood cuisine, especially lobster. Annually, the state holds the “Maine Lobster Festival” every summer, and is a popular lucrative attraction including carnival rides and food booths. The center of attention for this festival is, unsurprisingly, lobster. The author of the article “Consider the Lobster”, David Foster Wallace, mainly uses logos and pathos, and explores the idea of being put into the lobsters perspective by describing how the cooking process is done and informing us on the animal’s neurological system in a very comprehensible way. He effectively uses these persuasive devices to paint a picture for the audience and pave way for the reader to conjure
I believe David Foster Wallace’s aim for writing this piece was to explain his reasoning for killing and eating animals and to understand other people’s views on the issue as well. This is apparent throughout the writing. Wallace starts out by giving his personal description of the Maine Lobster Festival. He describes how it takes place July 30th through August 3rd, thousands of people come to the festival every year, its broadcasted on live television by CNN, and about 25,000 fresh lobsters are eaten over the course of the festival. Additionally, he goes into the biology of the lobster such as the scientific name and evolution. Leading up to this, he states the question for writing this piece, “Is it alright to boil a sentient creature alive for our gustatory pleasure” (p.9 Wallace)?
Norcross, Alastair. “Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases.” Philosophical Perspectives 18, (2004): 229-245.
Pollan gives another well-addressed argument to his readers concerning the gap between humans and their prey. He portrays our society as far from nature and that meat in grocery stores is made to look “as little like parts of animals as possible” (Pollan 307). To back his ideas, Pollan quotes “Why Look at Animals” by John Berger which explains how when consumers make eye contact with their prey, this builds a relationship between the two causing the predator to consume their meat without looking away (Pollan 307). This causes that person to not want to know what they are eating because people are used to not knowing what they are eating. If a non-fiction book was only filled with facts, readers would quickly lose interest and not want to read it.
“... the right question for animals is not ‘Can they reason?’ ‘Can they talk?’, but ‘Can they suffer?’ ”
Michael Pollan presents many convincing arguments that strengthen his position on whether slaughtering animals is ethical or not. He believes that every living being on this planet deserves an equal amount of respect regardless of it being an animal or human, after all humans are also animals. “An Animal’s place” by Michael Pollan is an opinionated piece that states his beliefs on whether animals should be slaughtered and killed to be someone’s meal or not. In his article, Pollan does not just state his opinions as a writer but also analyzes them from a reader’s point of view, thus answering any questions that the reader might raise. Although Pollan does consider killing and slaughtering of animals unethical, using environmental and ethical
Frey, R. (2013). Moral Vegetarianism and the Argument from Pain and Suffering. In L. Vaughn, Contemporary Moral Arguments - Readings in Ethical Issues Second Edition (pp. 622-627). New York: Oxford University Press.
I will argue that it is a better option for humans to not accept the doctrine of Animal Rights, and I will offer three reasons to support this claim. Firstly, Animal Rights can be limiting to the advancement of human health. Secondly, there are alternatives to accepting the Animal Rights. Finally, Animal Rights does not support animal control, which is important for sustaining the ecosystem. The second point will be discussed as an extension of the first point.