Introduction
In the article “Consider the Lobster,” D. F. Wallace discusses the ethical issues of boiling lobsters alive for culinary purposes. The author considers the various arguments of proponents as well as opponents of this procedure. As such, the fact whether lobsters are able to feel pain or not constitutes the central question of the article. Wallace asks, “Is it all right to boil a sentient creature alive just for our gustatory pleasure?” (4). In this regard, after reading the article and contemplating for some time on this problem, I am confident that the answer to the latter question should be ‘no.’
Overall Reaction to the Article
Before providing the reasons that boiling the lobsters alive is an immoral practice, I would like to, first, provide the overall reaction to the piece. This discussion is important as it will illustrate the aspects of an article that helped to shape my point of view. Considering that, I think that Wallace’s article is effective in terms of message delivery because it professionally combines purely logical thinking and argumentation with vivid descriptions that evoke rich emotions. On the one hand, the author analyzes the difference between the human beings’ and the lobsters’ perceptions of pain and what determines this distinction based on the previous scientific findings. On the other hand, the article depicts how lobsters behave before being placed in hot water and during the boiling process.
For this reason, my first reaction to the article was feeling pain for the creatures and anger towards such a practice. In this respect, the quote “although note already the semiconscious euphemism “prepared,” which in the case of lobsters really means killing them right there in our kitchens” best represents my original reaction (Wallace 5). However, I was not totally consumed by those emotions as the further reading also necessitated some ‘cold thinking.’ For instance, at some point in the discussion, I, without noticing it, started seriously considering the possibility of the fact that lobsters may not feel the pain. As a result, I am glad that this happened, as now I am more confident in my opinion because it is not only based on emotional reaction but also on ‘pure’ reflection and analysis.
Personal Moral Stance
As mentioned above, I consider the practice of boiling lobsters morally unjustified. Although the research is still not fully conclusive about the fact that these creatures feel pain and suffer, it is still better to stop such a practice under uncertainty. Indeed, there are various other ways how people can end lobsters’ lives before cooking them, which are seemingly associated with less pain. Yet, the preference for this practice is explained solely by the better taste of the dish. Thus, to solve this issue, it is necessary to juxtapose the risk of causing suffering to a living organism with potential hedonic benefits. In other words, in case people stop boiling lobsters alive, although these creatures do not feel pain, consumers only have to abandon some of their sensations. On the contrary, in case lobsters do feel pain from such a practice and are actively boiled alive, then humanity is the reason for millions of living creatures’ suffering each year. Therefore, in my opinion, any person who is concerned with the morality of this procedure would agree that under uncertainty, the behavior described in the former scenario is preferable.
Future Behavior
Although the previous paragraph provided the rationale that is dictated by the mind, intuitively, I feel that lobsters do suffer when they are boiled. For this reason, I will most probably not eat lobster anymore in the future. As for my previous behavior, I consumed the latter creature once, but then I was not fully aware of the manner how the dish is made. However, due to Wallace’s description of the cooking process, now I know exactly how lobsters are prepared and do not want to cause these creatures any pain. Probably, as the author mentions, it is easier for me to make such a conclusion as I am not a ‘fan’ of this dish. Nevertheless, I am grateful to Wallace for inviting the readers to question themselves whether their arguments concerning the reviewed issue are explained by personal interests and preferences and not by pure logic (7). I think such reflective inquiry can help not only to make better moral judgments regarding the discussed issue but also to resolve some other ethical dilemmas.
Conclusion
Overall, the current essay intended to explain why after reading Wallace’s article, I think that boiling lobsters alive is wrong from the moral standpoint. It was shown that the reviewed piece could invoke strong emotions in me and was also thought-provoking. For this reason, my arguments against the lobster cooking practice included both intuitional and logical aspects. As for the former, it was mentioned that all the lobsters’ behavior when they are placed in the boiling water suggests that these creatures do feel pain. As for the latter, it was noted that under uncertainty, the risks of causing suffering to the living organism outweigh the benefits of abandoning the hedonic pleasure from the moral stance. Therefore, people should use other – potentially less painful – methods for cooking lobsters. Moreover, because of the reasons discussed above, I will also avoid eating lobsters in the future.
Work Cited
Wallace, David Foster. “Consider the Lobster.” Gourmet, Web.