Consider The Lobster By David Foster Wallace Summary

1067 Words5 Pages
In “Consider the Lobster,” David Foster Wallace asks his readers to consider if eating lobsters or other animals is ethical. He describes how lobsters show a preference to not be boiled by their efforts to avoid or escape the pan. He argues that this preference is proof that the lobster suffers or feels pain. However, he ignores the fact that the same argument can be made about plants. Grasses produce a chemical in distress right before they are cut from a lawnmower or attacked by insects. This shows that the grass prefers to not be cut or eaten just as the lobster did. As humans, we must eat either plants or animals to survive. If both plants and animals feel pain and show a preference to live, then how is eating one more ethical that eating the other? I believe that it is ethically permissible to kill animals and plants for food as long as we use majority of the animal / plant for practical purposes, the animal / plant is not domesticated to a point of trust that a pet would have,…show more content…
In “Consider the Lobster,” David Foster Wallace presents a neutral view on the ethics of eating lobster and by extension other animals. I believe he wrote the article so his readers would consider the ethics of what they eat. That is how the article affected me . However, I have a problem with the article due to a bulk of the arguments against eating meat also applying to plants. As humans, we 're required to eat at least one of them. However, ethics do play a role, in that morals is one of the elements that separates us from other animals. I believe that if you kill an animal or plant for food, you should put a majority of it to use in some way. I also believe animals and plants that are grown as a source of food should have as little interaction with humans as possible. We should not eat animals and plants if we are endangering their existence by eating them. As long as animal or plant does not fall into one of these exceptions, then I believe it is ethically permissible to eat
Open Document