Analysis Of David Foster Wallace's 'Consider The Lobster'

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, I can compose the same argument 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 has a preference 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 a majority of the animal / plant is used for practical purposes, the animal / plant is not domesticated to a point of trust that a pet would have, and the
animal / plant is not endangered or has its existence threatened. The first question I consider is how much of the animal or plant is being used? A shark was rolled off a boat deprived of its fins and unable to swim. That shark will drown or starve solely for its fins to prepare shark fin soup. A Seminole child picks up the last remaining bones of a buffalo. These bones are too small to produce tools so they are being collected to form arrowheads. In both scenarios above an animal is killed for food. However, the fact that almost the entire buffalo was used for food, shelter, tools and blankets compared to just the fins of the shark is an important distinction to me. The fact that the shark was killed just for its fins and the rest of the animal is wasted makes it unethical to eat shark fin soup. The shark is an extreme example of this, let's look at one that is not so obvious. Crabs are a great example of a less obvious case. Crabs can be both ethically permissible and impermissible to eat depending on how they are served. For example, blue crabs are frequently served whole while Alaskan king crabs are usually only sold as crab legs. While I don't have an exact percentage of the animal or plant being used that I draw the line at, I do believe that it is more ethical to kill an animal or plant if you are using the majority of it for food or other purposes. The next question I consider is how domesticated is the animal or plant? Domestication is a difficult subject when it comes to the ethics of eating animals and plants. It's difficult considering that in order to produce enough food to support our population there has to be some interaction with humans. I do believe that interaction with animals or plants grown for food sources should be limited and much less than it is for pets or houseplants. I use general terms for pets and houseplants on purpose being they can vary depending on where you live or grew up. This is an area where culture has a great effect on what is considered ethical to eat. The main point is that the level of familiarity and trust rather than the specific type of plant or animal is what determines if it is ethical. The final question I consider is will I endanger an animal or plant's existence by eating it? I believe we all have a moral obligation to attempt to leave the world in a better place for future generations. While this is an impossible task, by making an attempt we will leave it better off than if we did not try. This is why I feel it is unethical to eat any plant or animal that is endangered by doing so. Primates, lions, elephants, and dolphins are all endangered, but are still a source of food in some countries. Overfishing has endangered cod, salmon, bluefin tuna, halibut, and countless other species. There are some cases where eating an endangered plant or animal is beneficial. In "The World's Most Endangered Food," Rachel Nuwer discusses how mass-production farming is causing some breeds of animals and varieties of plants to go extinct. Farmers are using only a couple of breeds or varieties to maximize profits. Ninety percent of cattle used in the dairy industry now come from one breed. In the United States, eighty-six percent of apple varieties from historical records are now extinct and several more are endangered. In these cases, the food is endangered due to lack of demand. Purchasing and eating these foods may actually help keep them from going extinct. As global warming continues to change our weather, keeping these plants and animals from going extinct could play a vital role in our survival. 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 impacted 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. Animals and plants should not be eaten if by eating them, we are endangering their existence. As long as animal or plant does not fall into one of these exceptions, then I believe it is ethically permissible to eat
them.