Draft 1
After reading “Consider the Lobster” by David Foster many questions came to mind. The most important questions was, if someone is brought up in a culture where things differ from another culture, is there a right or a wrong? For example, in China eating dogs and cats is part of the culture there. People don’t even think twice about it, but in America we see that as animal abuse and you can be prosecuted for it. It is fascinating how something that is part of the way of life in one culture can be the complete opposite in another culture. Wallace talks about how boiling lobsters alive is inhumane, while others think of it in a completely way. In Maine lobster is the way of life, literally people’s lively hood depends on it, in Colorado this can be completely different. People do not depend on fishing out in Colorado to make a living, in Maine they do this is just one example this list goes on forever.
Wallace makes a big point to point out that when you cook a lobster you essentially end up boiling it alive more often than not. “For one thing, its not just that lobsters get boiled alive, its that you do it yourself or at least its done specifically for you, on site.” There are two side to this quote. Some people look at this and think, “yes, I agree there has to be a better way than to boil them alive.” Others think, “this is how I feed my family and pay my bills.” The debate can go on and on either way, there is no right or wrong answer here. There are studies out there that say the lobster can not feel pain and therefor boiling them alive or dead would make no difference to how to lobster felt.
In the article Against Meat by Jonathan Safran Fore he talks about when he was growing up he would often go to his grandmother’s house for dinner. She survived World War Two by scavenging Europe barefoot looking for anything to eat. She would find table scraps, rotting potatoes, discarded scraps of meat, she would literally eat anything she could find because she was simply trying to survive. Now she shares these stories with her grandson and teaches him not to waste ant food. This is how Jonathan was raised, on the other hand his baby sitter was raided a different way. When it was time to eat if they were having chicken she would not eat it because she thought she was hurting the animal. “When I was 9, I had a baby sitter who didn’t want to hurt anything. She put it just like that when I asked her why she wasn’t having chicken with my older brother and me.” The baby sitter was raised differently. Her parents must have raided her telling her the same thing that hurting animals to eat them is not good and you should not do it. There is nothing wrong with that at all, that is how she was brought up, it is now in her roots that in order to eat a chicken you need to first kill the chicken and that is not right.
Darft 2
Steven Rife
Prof. miller
English 110
12 November 2018
The Fight Between Right and Wrong
After reading “Consider the Lobster” by David Foster many questions came to mind. The most important questions was, if someone is brought up in a culture where things differ from another culture, is there a right or a wrong? For example, in China eating dogs and cats is part of the culture there. People don’t even think twice about it, but in America we see that as animal abuse and you can be prosecuted for it. It is fascinating how something that is part of the way of life in one culture can be the complete opposite in another culture. Wallace talks about how boiling lobsters alive is inhumane, while others think of it in a completely way. In Maine lobster is the way of life, literally people’s lively hood depends on it, in Colorado this can be completely different. People do not depend on fishing out in Colorado to make a living, in Maine they do this is just one example this list goes on forever.
Wallace makes a big point to point out that when you cook a lobster you essentially end up boiling it alive more often than not. “For one thing, its not just that lobsters get boiled alive, its that you do it yourself or at least its done specifically for you, on site.” There are two side to this quote. Some people look at this and think, “yes, I agree there has to be a better way than to boil them alive.” Others think, “this is how I feed my family and pay my bills.” The debate can go on and on either way, there is no right or wrong answer here. There are studies out there that say the lobster can not feel pain and therefor boiling them alive or dead would make no difference to how to lobster felt.
In the article Against Meat by Jonathan Safran Fore he talks about when he was growing up he would often go to his grandmother’s house for dinner. She survived World War Two by scavenging Europe barefoot looking for anything to eat. She would find table scraps, rotting potatoes, discarded scraps of meat, she would literally eat anything she could find because she was simply trying to survive. Now she shares these stories with her grandson and teaches him not to waste ant food. This is how Jonathan was raised, on the other hand his baby sitter was raided a different way. When it was time to eat if they were having chicken she would not eat it because she thought she was hurting the animal. “When I was 9, I had a baby sitter who didn’t want to hurt anything. She put it just like that when I asked her why she wasn’t having chicken with my older brother and me.” The baby sitter was raised differently. Her parents must have raided her telling her the same thing that hurting animals to eat them is not good and you should not do it. There is nothing wrong with that at all, that is how she was brought up, it is now in her roots that in order to eat a chicken you need to first kill the chicken and that is not right.
In both scenarios no one is wrong, in fact they are both wright in a way. If you asked both families this question, is killing a chicken in order to eat it right or wrong? The answers you get back from both families will probably be the opposite. It all comes back to culture and the way you were raised and standing up for what you believe in. When you are a kid you believe what you are told because you do not have enough information to make an educated choice on where you stand on a certain situation. In this case when Fore was growing up his father told him not to hurt family members or stranger, or the family dog, or damage furniture so when he heard what his babysitter said to him it made sense and at the moment he stopped eating the chicken. He realized by his father telling him not to hurt other people or the family dog that farmed animals should be in that list.
peer review
Draft 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.
Final Draft
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.
Recent Comments