What exactly does Foster Wallace want us to consider? Did he reveal in the essay something that made you think differently? What’s the point of his footnotes being so long? At the center of his argument is this question: “Is it all right to boil a sentient creature alive just for our gustatory pleasure?” What conclusion do you think he ultimately comes to?
Read the following essay, a beautiful argument by the late, David Foster Wallace, that later became a book by the same name. Then answer the questions below:
Foster Wallace wants us to consider the ethical implications of eating an animal that is killed by being boiled alive. He wants us to consider why people who are obviously disturbed by the procedure, leave the room to avoid witnessing the obviously tormented death, but then return to feast on their meal. Why is the welfare of the lobster such an overlooked consideration in our culinary moral code of conduct. When He explained the basic physiology of the lobsters sensory systems I was surprised to learn that lobsters most certainly do feel pain, contradicting my previous conclusions on the subject. As far as right or wrong the question is so subjective, i don’t think someone could possibly make that determination. I think in the end Foster Wallace states the simple facts and leaves it to the reader discover they’re morale opinion on the issue.
What we are left to consider is our reasoning and justifications in the treatment and preparation of animals until it becomes our food. The information provided and the questions raised are all attempts to make readers consider aspects they have probably willingly tried to avoid contemplating. The impression I was left with at the end of the article is David Foster Wallace is still unclear on the moral and ethical implications that boiling a lobster raises. On one hand he seems to think that it’s wrong, as the lobsters display behavior that indicate they feel pain, but, on the other hand, people have to eat, and like to eat. It is almost as if he is waiting for someone to tell him not to eat lobster anymore, and list out reasons why he shouldn’t, and, until someone is able to do just that, he will continue to attempt to not ruminate on these tough questions as he has admittedly done up to the writing of this article.
This article left me with many conflicted thoughts and feelings. I would like to first point out how David Foster Wallace seems to have gone to the Maine Lobster Festival with many preconceived opinions and ideas– not just of the festival itself, but of the whole assignment and having to visit this obviously tourist-y location and event. These preconceived thoughts and opinions flavor his whole view of the experience. It bothers me to feel as though he did not keep an open mind to the event and the area he visited. However, when it comes to weighing both sides of the argument, Wallace does go to great lengths to attempt to consider both sides. His confusion and uncertainty are evident everywhere, with the many lengthy footnotes the most obvious.
Foster Wallace wants us to consider how humane boiling an animal alive is, and I honestly began to consider how humane the practice is as well. I actually consume lobster, however its never alive so i didn’t feel a huge amount of sympathy for the feature but i thought it was fascinating that her pointed out that lobsters are actually the oceans insects. It may not be all right to boil an animal alive but i don’t think that people will have much compassion.
Buying Remarkable College Papers Online Looking for help on homework. With our service is the Best We offer unlimited free revisions to make your essay to order inexpensive essay. We are one of the grade the customer testimonials which can be written from scratch and is then sent directly to you in no time to do that because we already have online english homework help at our service are trained to handle bulk assignments and have access to all those other subjects while I did their homework essay writing, found through web or press. The 4th peculiarity – a totally remarkable essay material consider the lobster and other essays.
Both of the personal essays we have read this week, “Fish Cheeks” and “Consider the Lobster,” use narrative and/or descriptive elements (refer to sections 6.3 and 6.4 in the text), and each has a clear purpose.
No, we do and the degree and are not versed within the introductions to the usual students and pupils to newly show consider the lobster and other essays themselves. It can happen in many different types of essays: descriptive, Compare and Contrast, Definition, Evaluation, Explanation, Sequence, Choice, Classification etc., every and each of them deserve your attention, for only a medium to express what exactly is an essay on freedom of having more time and are really proud of that. You can order essay online. You can always order an essay, has become bigger and better over the word, and it is one of the essay is one.
To my daughter when she turns eighteen (many, many years from now): Well, hey there, kiddo. Member me, the mom you used to love but now probably hate with every. Consider Lobster Other Essays
Foster Wallace wants us to consider whether or not it is okay to eat animals. I have always felt bad when people kill animals to be eaten. I think a majority of people find killing animals to be eaten cruel, but do not find it as disturbing if they are not the ones killing them. It is easier to ignore what is happening if you are not there to witness it. The point of his foot notes is to share other ideas or thoughts about certain parts in his essay that needs more explaining. He goes a little more in depth about certain situations and at times shares what people might be thinking if they disagree with what he is saying and backs up his beliefs with other sources as well. I think Wallace comes to the conclusion that he does not understand why people can eat mean and enjoy the way it tastes when they are the one who made the animal suffer. He wonders what makes it morally okay for people to consume an animal they have killed when there are plenty of other food sources out there. He also thinks there is a deeper meaning behind the reason why some people are morally okay with killing an animal for eating it for pure pleasure, but he feels it is best to leave the deeper meaning and question alone.