Consider The Lobster Summary

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 his article “Consider the Lobster”, David Foster Wallace uses the Maine Lobster Festival as a medium for his argument regarding the ethics of eating lobster. Wallace frames his article as a conversation just to get people thinking, but a deeper look at his rhetoric shows that he is arguing against the inhumanities of eating lobster, while doing everything he can to avoid sounding like he is taking a stance.

Off the Bay of Penobscot lays the nerve stem of the lobster industry positioned in the state’s mid-coast region, the world’s largest lobster festival takes place highlighting the area’s top delicacy, and the beauty tourists travel for. David Foster Wallace’s “Consider the Lobster” article is a persuasive article that uses Logical, Emotional, and Ethical appeals to sway the reader his way supported by facts to add credibility to his point of view. David starts off painting a beautiful image about the Maine Lobster Festival, and he turns on the microscope on the poor Lobster and what it goes through appealing to the reader emotionally. With his facts appealing rationally and questioning the reader through the ethically through the credibility

If you have ever cooked a lobster, you know the sickening image of it clinging to the pot to avoid the boiling water, or the stomach churning sound of it scratching the insides of the kettle during its final moments. In David Foster Wallace’s essay, Consider the Lobster, he explores the complex and uncomfortable ethics of eating lobsters. After a vivid description of all the happenings of the Maine Lobster Festival, Wallace asks the reader to consider the inhumanities of boiling lobsters alive for the sake of consumer satisfaction. Wallace employs the rhetorical appeals of logos, ethos, and pathos to enhance his argument. Although some people may disagree with Wallace and assert that cooking Homarus americanus cannot be considered a moral decision,

In “The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A natural history of four meals,” Michael Pollan examines American eating habits. The book is divided into three pieces. The first piece focuses on industrial farming, the second analyzes organic food, and the third discusses hunting and gathering of our own food.

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

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 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.

The Omnivore’s Dilemma by Michael Pollan is a comprehensive look into the present day food culture of the United States. Throughout the book the author tries to find out the true composition of the diet that is consumed by Americans on a daily basis. There is an excessive dependence by the American population on the government to know which food is good for them. This paper will critically analyze the book as well as the stance that the author has taken. Since there is a deluge of information about diets and health available today, the relevance of this well researched book in the present day world cannot be emphasized enough. Its relevance is not limited to the United States alone but to the entire human society which is moving towards homogenous food habits.

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.

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.

Throughout the course of David Foster Wallace’s essay, Consider the Lobster, he uses many different methods to try and convince his audience in fact it is seemingly inhumane to boil lobsters. Wallace proves to the reader that the proponents of the Maine Lobster Festival, home of the World’s Largest Lobster Cooker, support their style of killing the lobster by falsely arguing that lobsters do not feel pain, when in fact they do. By examining the essay, it is apparent that Wallace is writing to more than one audience. One audience that he is writing to is the readers of Gourmet, the magazine that this essay was published in. However, it is important to note that this essay is also being written to those people who would not have read the magazine otherwise, that is the people that who are purely reading this article because it was written by Wallace. Because there is such a broad audience, it is nearly impossible for every piece of evidence given to effect each read the same way. Below I will examine a piece of evidence that appeals to only one audience, as well as evidence that does in fact appeal to both.

In the cover story, “Loving Animals to Death” by James McWilliams, it discusses how important it is to know where you get your meats from. For example, Bob Comis of Stony Brook Farm is a different type of a professional pig farmer, in fact, the good kind. He believes it's important that the animals he has should be raised with dignity and not unfairly and crudely. Although Comis' believes what he does for a living is wrong, he does it because it's what we all enjoy eating regardless of how much we truly know about it. What's most important when it comes to food is where it's coming from and how it will be prepared. If a person loves pork, that's fine, as long as the pork comes from a local humane farm. The food movement is basically more constructural rather than nutritional. Eating anything you want is fine as long as it comes from a place that is nonindustrial.

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.

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