Christopher WillnerProfessor Curran ENC 1102January 27, 2018Lobsters: say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essayEat 'em or leave 'em? In David Foster Wallace's essay, "Consider the Lobster," Wallace argues that animal suffering (especially lobsters) is a complex and uncomfortable issue. However, even considering the evidence, some people still disagree with Wallace. These people will most likely argue that because lobsters are not human, cooking them cannot be considered a moral decision. This statement is false because the process of cooking lobsters actually involves ethical considerations. Ethical considerations are defined as an accumulation of values ​​and principles that address the question of what is good or bad in human affairs. This means that humans have a certain morality that allows them to determine what is right or wrong. Wallace finds it important to highlight some of the more difficult ethical questions that arise from the Maine Lobster Festival (MLF). To make his point, Wallace first argues that lobster is prepared either right in front of you or by yourself. the kitchen. He uses this approach as imagery to arouse the reader's emotions and beliefs. By using the home scenario, he makes the reader feel like they are the cook. He writes: “The basic scenario is that we come home from the store and do our little preparations like filling the kettle and boiling it, then we take the lobsters out of the bag...after which uncomfortable things start to happen. » (Wallace 467.) The uneasiness begins soon after. Wallace goes on to write: “No matter how stupid a lobster is on the return journey, for example, it has a tendency to come to alarming life when placed in boiling water. ...The lobster will sometimes try to cling to the sides of the container or even hang its claws on the edge of the pot like a person trying to keep from going over the edge of a roof. And even worse...you can usually hear the lid slam and clang as the lobster tries to push it away” (Wallace 467.) The purpose of comparing the lobster to humans is to make the reader imagine that they are experiencing what is the lobster. experiment. That said, Wallace is simply trying to point out that lobsters meet the two criteria that ethicists use to determine whether an animal is capable of pain: 1.) the number of pain receptors the animal in question has, and 2.) whether the animal displays the behavior associated with pain. And although Wallace says lobsters don't have as advanced a nervous system as humans, lobsters are very sensitive animals that can detect gradual changes in temperature. Furthermore, once a lobster is plunged into the pot of boiling water, it can no longer be denied that the struggle coming from within is a sign of suffering and pain. To further strengthen his argument, Wallace states that the lobster's scrambling behavior is a behavior of preference. And since Wallace believes that displaying a preference for one condition over another is an important indicator of suffering, Wallace concludes that lobsters are in fact capable of experiencing suffering. By raising these points, Wallace hopes to provoke self-examination and analysis of readers' own perspectives. on animal suffering. Wallace does not fully understand how people justify eating animals for their own taste pleasure and experience. Conversely, Wallace asks what are the.