Korianna Limoges

Professor Miller

English 110-H4

11/10/17

Draft 1 of Paper 3

      In David Foster Wallace’s essay, Consider the Lobster, the important ethical question of whether it should be morally acceptable to eat lobster is in question.  This can lead to further questions about humans and their relations with animals.  Is it okay how we view our treatment of animals?  Does it not matter that they are not human?  We, as humans, often overlook deep, moral questions because we fear the answer.  However, this does not make it right.  In the case of the lobster, we can see just how much we try to turn a blind eye.  Deep down it is disturbing to think of the death of a lobster.  They have killed alive after all.  In Hal, Herzog’s, “Animals Like Us,” the same predicament can be seen.  As humans, we need to reflect on the morality of our relationship with animals.  It is not easy, and it does make people feel uncomfortable.  No one likes to willingly admit that something they thought was okay is actually wrong.  This can be compared to Michael Pollan’s, “The Meal-Fast Food.”  The harmful ingredients that these fast food businesses are hiding are sick and truly horrible.  Yet, they keep continuing on with their multimillionaire businesses.  They are no better than us really.  It seems to be a human tendency to want to look the other way when it comes to possibly doing something wrong.  This is especially the case if you benefit from doing so.  Fast food chains make loads of money and humans get to enjoy the delicious taste of lobster without feeling guilty.   There is nothing wrong with this right?  Wrong, people should reflect on what they are doing and how it could harm not only others, or themselves, but also animals.  Wallace’s argument is one to take seriously.

Korianna Limoges

Professor Miller

English 110-H4

11/10/17

Draft 2 of Paper 3

In David Foster Wallace’s essay, Consider the Lobster, the important ethical question of whether it should be morally acceptable to eat lobster is in question.  This can lead to further questions about humans and their relations with animals.  Is it okay how we view our treatment of animals?  Does it matter if they are not human?  We, as humans, often overlook deep, moral questions because we fear the answer.  However, this does not make it right.  In the case of the lobster, we can see just how much we try to turn a blind eye.  Deep down it is disturbing to think of the death of a lobster.  The way they are killed is very uncomfortable and cruel.  In Hal, Herzog’s, “Animals Like Us,” the same predicament can be seen.  As humans, we need to reflect on the morality of our relationship with animals.  It is not easy, and it does make people feel uncomfortable.  No one likes to willingly admit that something they thought was okay is actually wrong.  This can be compared to Michael Pollan’s, “The Meal-Fast Food.”  The harmful ingredients that these fast food businesses are hiding are sick and truly horrible.  Yet, they keep continuing on with their multimillionaire businesses.  They are no better than us really.  It seems to be a human tendency to want to look the other way when it comes to possibly doing something wrong.  This is especially the case if you benefit from doing so.  Fast food chains make loads of money and humans get to enjoy the delicious taste of lobster without feeling guilty.   There is nothing wrong with this right?  Wrong, people should reflect on what they are doing and how it could harm not only others, or themselves, but also animals.  Wallace’s argument is one to take seriously.

There are multiple approaches to this issue.  For the most part, however, there are two main sides.  There are those who are completely against animal abuse in all forms that it comes in, and there are those who are not necessarily for it but may think there are a lot of benefits to using animals.

For those who are against animal abuse entirely, they are like those who are against the fast food industry.  They know that the people who are behind these two corrupt businesses are hiding the very horrible and real parts of them in order to be able to continue with their success.  There are some really messed up and disturbing aspects of fast food and what it is made up of.  The same can be said for animals.

 

Herzog insists that sometimes it is okay to be in the middle.  There is not always a clear answer to this moral issue.  Many people feel like torn between the two sides.  Herzog refers to this conflicting area as, “The troubled middle.”  This seems justified because the issue is definitely not one that is black or white.  There is not an easy solution to this moral toss up.  People think it is cruel to test makeup products on animals, but on the other hand, they are not against trying to find a cure for a disease by going through so many animals.  One could say that this is a question of priority.  Is using animals in an abusive way acceptable if it is for a good enough purpose?  Some might argue, that it should never be acceptable while others might argue it should be acceptable in some cases.  Herzog’s “Animals Like Us,” helps us to understand those who are conflicted over the matter of whether what the answer is by giving insight to what and why people who are torn think.  This is important to recognize because to those who are on one side of this issue could be frustrated with those who are not.  They may tend to think that those who do not choose a side do not care enough to.