Why Is It More Ethical To Eat Lobster

1339 Words6 Pages
Imagine piercing a tender piece of lobster with a fork, drenching the piece in the golden melted butter, and the flavors that erupt in your mouth when a piece of lobster is eaten. It may taste delicious to some; conversely, some people find the cooking process to be too unbearable to even consume lobster. In “Consider the Lobster,” David Foster Wallace argues that people should not consume lobster on account of the animal’s suffering during the preparation and cooking processes. He makes his argument by invoking the principle that creatures should not suffer in order to fulfill the needs and wants of people. Also taking a stand on whether or not to eat meat, Jay Bost also invokes a principle in his essay, “Sometimes It’s More Ethical to Eat Mean Than Vegetables,” that was published in the New York Times. He invokes the principle that eating meat is ethical because it preserves the natural systems that exist in the environment. While David Wallace invokes the principle that creatures should not suffer in order to satisfy our needs and wants, Jay Bost arouses the principle to preserve the environment; however, they both overlook that core values that influence a person’s principle vary from person to person, and not everyone is going to be persuaded to agree with their…show more content…
Perhaps some people will be persuaded, but the principles that Wallace and Bost utilize will also cross the line of other’s principles. In a world where there are so many walks of life and different perspectives, one cannot expect that every person would have the same principles and would be easily persuaded when the principles being presented to them are against their own. Both Wallace and Bost fail to recognize that there are other principles about eating or not eating meat other than their
Open Document