Morality is essential to the stability of a nation or an organization. In fact, lack thereof leads to the development of uncertainty among individuals and this situation compromises peace. With this in mind, it is worth acknowledging the fact that David Foster raises his ethical concerns about the consumption of lobsters. Precisely, he does not present his argument in a way that castigates this action. Rather, he poses a question that challenges one’s emotional and logical appeal. He mentions, “Is it all right to boil a sentient creature alive just for our gustatory pleasure?” This statement forms the basis of his entire argument as it challenges his audience to contemplate on the case he presents. As he advances his argument, he mentions the fact that boiling lobsters while they are still alive leads to their mental and physical pain. However, since it is nearly impossible to quantify the amount of pain endured by these organisms, most people assume that their action is not unethical. Finally, he challenges the popularity of the Maine Lobster Festival that is mainly based on having fun, socializing while consuming lobsters and ignoring the welfare of the organism boiled alive.
For a fact, Foster’s argument is rather appealing and is presented in a concise way. At first glance, one would not notice the evidence is portrayed from an ethical perspective without reviewing the reading again. As such, his intuitive method of presentation augments the overall relevance of his claim. His primary audience is comprised of the American and non-American citizens who attend the annual MLF. Specifically, he seeks to deliver a message about the importance of considering the welfare of these organisms before taking part in the celebrations. Additionally, other audiences include the government, humanitarian groups, and the media. Since he utilizes an example of how the CNN popularized this festival in 2003 and did not highlight how the lobsters were prepared, he raises some ethical concerns on the inadequacies of the media thereby prompting them to be careful on how the market events. Finally, humanitarian organizations and the government are captured in the audience because the betterment of this problem involves their intervention. For a fact, David Foster utilizes rhetoric appeals to convince his audience that there is a need to think about the lobster before consuming it.
He advances his argument further and explains how the animal tries to fight for its life moments before it is dipped in a bowl containing boiling water. He mentions, “The lobster will sometimes cling to the container’s sides or even to hook its claws over the kettle’s rim like a person trying to keep from going over the edge of a roof.” This claim shows the extent of inhumanity employed during the preparation of lobsters consumed during the festival. He coaxes the audience to put themselves in the position of the lobster. “The lobster, in other words, behaves very much as you or I would behave if we were plunged into boiling water.” With this proposition, he appeals to the audience to reconsider how they prepare lobsters for the Maine Festival as the methods utilized are unethical.
Wallace uses ethical to establish his credibility with the audience. Through this approach, he puts forward a constructive relationship with the public before outlining the nature of this argument. In the first section of the essay, Wallace describes the Maine Lobster Festival in the first person to convince the reader about his knowledge on the celebration. In the middle section of the essay, he uses a third person perspective to outline animal rights and the adverse levels of suffering experienced by the lobsters. The fact that he shifted to form the first to the third person perspective allowed him to distance himself from the reader and establish a form of authority on animal rights and the lobster cooking festival. He mentions, “It 's hard not to sense that they're unhappy, or frightened, even if it's some rudimentary version of these feelings.” With this claim, he outlines his overall knowledge about the lobster’s feelings from a closer perspective. He, therefore, appeals to the audience by showing them that he understands the pain felt by these organisms. In the last section of the presentation, he explains, “even if it's some rudimentary version of these feelings and, again, why does rudimentariness even enter into it?” With this claim, he emphasizes that people should not focus on the amount of pain subjected to the organisms before reconsidering the lobster preparation method. Rather, the focus should be based on the accommodation of the lobster.
In conclusion, Wallace effectively presents his argument about lobster consumption due to the nature of the relationship he establishes with his audience. He utilizes pathos and ethos to enhance his claim by citing relevant examples from an ethical perspective. As a result, the audience is more susceptible to the nature of his presentation making it lesser challenging to establish his argument. The relevance of his claim is better developed through the relationship he creates with the audience. Overall, the method he utilizes to present his evidence shapes the credibility of his claim.
Works Cited
Wallace, David Foster. "Consider the lobster." Gourmet magazine (2004): 50-64.
