The writing piece I have chosen to talk about would be project three. The reason I am choosing project three is because we have pretty much learned all of the writing process by then. In that paper we had to use three piece of writing that we went through throughout the year and try to find some common ground between the three. The way I use sources in my paper is mostly to back up the point I am trying to get across in the authors words. Once I insert a quote that I want to use I will first explain the quote in my own words then start to talk about why that quote backs up the point I am trying to get across. For example, for example in the quote I used by David Foster Wallace how he talks about how animal cruelty when it comes killing animals for food whether it is right or wrong, I explain what he is talking about then I use the quote to back up the point that I am trying to make about people would rather not talk about the subject and just eat their food. I always integrate quotes into my paper for a reason, never just to add words in my essays. Every quote I use is mostly to help me prove my thesis statement. In the past before I went through this course I would use quotes to help me fill up the word count in my papers. Most of the time the quotes did not really help prove my thesis, bow when I use quotes I make sure they are to help prove my thesis.

 

Final paper 3

Steven Rife

Prof. miller

English 110

19 November 2018

The Fight Between Right and Wrong

 

Where to draw the line between what is considered morally right or wrong is an ongoing conflict for the human race. Life practices differ drastically between cultures around the globe, making it difficult to determine who is doing something the “right” way. If one is raised to view a certain practice as a norm, who is an outsider to step in and point out to them that something they’ve done throughout their entire life is “wrong”? This argument is explored in “Consider the Lobster” by David Foster Wallace, “Against Meat” by Jonathan Safran Fore, and “Animals Like Us” by Hal Herzog… These articles all explore the question, if a person realizes something is morally wrong is that enough for someone to stop their actions or, will they continue on for their own person gain? In this case, it has been established that killing animals only to enjoy the taste of their cooked meat is indeed morally wrong, but in some cases is not enough to stop the actions.

Have you ever truly thought about how your chicken, steak, or lobster ended up on your plate? Not just the process of cooking your meal but how it was raised, then killed for your well being? David Foster Wallace brings up the question of, is it morally okay to boil a lobster alive? After reading “Consider the Lobster” by David Foster Wallace, many questions came to mind. The most important question that came to mind was, if a person realizes something is morally wrong do they stop their actions or continue on for their own person gain. For example, at the Maine lobster festival, the lobster is caught and cooked within a 30 minute to an hour span. Many people will agree that this process is cruel and inhumane. While others – mostly the Maine lobstermen and New England residents – will say that it is not inhumane, and that, for some, it is the way of life. At the end of the day, it all comes down to what a person’s moral standards are and if that is enough to stop the torturing of lobsters in the kitchen.

Another question arises after reading “Consider the Lobster”, for the people that do enjoy eating lobster, do they consider the pain the lobster goes through while it is being cooked? Or do they simply discard the thought of inflicting pain on the lobster? Cooking a lobster is a personal process. Fist, people pick out a lobster alive and well swimming around in a tank, then it is brought home to be boiled alive. For someone that has not put a lobster into a boiling pot of water it is hard not to notice the lobster’s last efforts to try and save itself from the boiling water. Some people have to leave the room when they drop a live lobster into boiling water because they do in fact understand that it is morally wrong but continue to push the thought out of their heads. For some people realizing their actions are morally wrong, is enough to stop them from boiling a lobster alive and in return do not eat lobster. While others continue to push the thought of the lobster being tortured out of their head and continue on to enjoy the savory lobster. “The more important point here, though, is that the whole animal-cruelty-and-eating issue is not just complex, it’s also uncomfortable. It is, at any rate, uncomfortable for me, and for just about everyone I know who enjoys a variety of foods and yet does not want to see herself as cruel or unfeeling. As far as I can tell, my own main way of dealing with this conflict had been to avoid thinking about the whole thing.” (Wallace 505).  As Wallace portrays he avoids the thought of boiling a lobster being morally wrong all together. He understands It is wrong but continues to eat the lobster anyway. The same thing we see happening with David Foster Wallace is happening to people all across America, where simply understanding what is morally right and wrong is not enough to stop their actions.

People argue the line between right and wrong all the time, but in some cases is the question still, “right or wrong?” Or is it more along the lines of the statement, “it is wrong but let’s forget about it and do it anyway.” The article “Against Meat” by Jonathan Safran Fore explores the idea animal farming is morally wrong but, it is still going on anyway even though it is against moral standards. For example, boiling a lobster alive is morally wrong, but people do it anyway. The fact is, people seem to tend to their desires when it comes to food more than their moral standards. Why? Simply because it tastes good. “This isn’t animal experimentation, where you can imagine some proportionate good at the other end of the suffering. This is what we feel like eating. Yet taste, the crudest of our senses, has been exempted from the ethical rules that govern our other senses.” (Fore). Fore brings up a good point that he proves by sharing his own experiences in his life. He and his wife both lean towards the vegetarian side of things, but sometimes they still like to enjoy a burger or a steak because “it tastes good” he explains. People tend to disengage themselves at the fact that raising and killing animals only to eat them is morally wrong because eating a big juicy steak is more enjoyable to some, then to not enjoy the great taste of a steak.

Most people agree that animal farming is both ethically and morally wrong. The problem is not getting people to agree with the above statement. The problem lays within each individual person and where people morally stand. “Animals Like Us” by Hal Herzog does a great job explain this.  “Like most people, I am conflicted about our ethical obligations to animals. The philosopher Strachan Donnelley calls this murky ethical territory “the troubled middle.” Those of us in the troubled middle live in a complex moral universe.” (Herzog 2). The way Donnelley mentioned the “troubled middle” is interesting. People understand animal farming, or boiling a lobster alive for that matter is ethically wrong, but do they have the moral standards to stop their actions? Is understanding that these actions are both morally and ethically wrong enough to cancel out the mouth watering sensation of a freshly cooked lobster? The answer for many is no, it is not enough to stop someone from filling that sensational void of eating a lobster or a steak.

The question, if a person realizes something is morally wrong is that enough for someone to stop their actions or, will they continue on for their own person gain will be under intense debate forever. There is a left and a right side to this issue and both have compelling arguments against the matter. People can be fully aware of animal farming and all of the morally wrong things people do to animals for the sole purpose of pleasure eating, and most people are educated at least a little bit on the subject. The fact is educating people about the cruel things people do to animals for food is not going to change the moral standards for the majority. For some people, educating them is enough to make them change what they eat. For the rest, it seems people do acknowledge that what is being done to animals in order to eat them is morally wrong but simply not enough to refrain them from eating meat, so to answer the question the majority of people will continue to eat what they eat even though animal farming or boiling a lobster alive is viewed as morally wrong. The quest to fill that mouth watering sensation and the instant gratification that comes along with it is too hard to pass up.