Draft 1
(300 words)
The True Value behind Consideration
The weather is warm and the sky is clear. The calm lake lay still and glassy, with no movement present on the surface. However, underneath that glassy surface a large landlocked salmon was taking a swim close to the surface. All in a matter of seconds a great bald eagle swoops down from his hidden perch, and snatches the salmon from the water. Just like that, the eagle has his lunch, and there is one less salmon in the quiet lake. This is a depiction of how the food chain works, and how it has been working since the beginning of time. Wallace, author of “Consider the Lobster”, shares his thoughts on how the eating of lobsters has become more inhumane than the basic food chain. With his argument based solely in the treatment of lobster, he is also extending to reach the points about the consideration of animals, and their treatment. The ideas Foer presents in his piece “Against Meat”, are also consistent with his inability to want to hurt animals. However, our specific values and the human lack for self-control, come through as strong themes to support Foer’s story. Lastly in Herzog’s essay, “Animals like Us”, he makes the tying point regarding the idea of what an animal truly is, and what it’s place is in society. All three of these texts make similar movements towards the inconsistency of ideas involving the rights of animals. That salmon will be dropped from the sky and ripped apart by the eagle before it can be enjoyed. The limits we put on ourselves based on our values and what we believe to considerate do not need to be complicated- it’s not complicated in nature. We are at the top of the food chain on this planet, and possess a higher capacity of understanding than any other creature walking on it. Therefore, the consideration that we give to food and the value that we have for the food that we eat is what makes us who we are. We overcomplicate the situation to the point where the true value behind the idea of consideration is ultimately lost.
Draft 2
(500 words)
The True Value behind Consideration
The weather is warm and the sky is clear. The calm lake lay still and glassy, with no movement present on the surface. However, underneath that glassy surface a large landlocked salmon was taking a swim close to the surface. All in a matter of seconds a great bald eagle swoops down from his hidden perch, and snatches the salmon from the water. Just like that, the eagle has his lunch, and there is one less salmon in the quiet lake. This is a depiction of how the food chain works, and how it has been working since the beginning of time. Wallace, author of “Consider the Lobster”, shares his thoughts on how the eating of lobsters has become more inhumane than the basic food chain. With his argument based solely in the treatment of lobster, he is also extending to reach the points about the consideration of animals, and their treatment. The ideas Foer presents in his piece “Against Meat”, are also consistent with his inability to want to hurt animals. However, our specific values and the human lack for self-control, come through as strong themes to support Foer’s story. Lastly in Herzog’s essay, “Animals like Us”, he makes the tying point regarding the idea of what an animal truly is, and what it’s place is in society. All three of these texts make similar movements towards the inconsistency of ideas involving the rights of animals. That salmon will dropped from the sky and ripped apart by the eagle before it can be enjoyed. The limits we put on ourselves based on our values and what we believe to considerate do not need to be complicated- it’s not complicated in nature. We are at the top of the food chain on this planet, and possess a higher capacity of understanding than any other creature walking on it. Therefore, the consideration that we give to food and the value that we have for the food that we eat is what makes us who we are. We overcomplicate the situation to the point where the true value behind the idea of consideration is ultimately lost.
When considering how we prepare and cook animals in order for us to enjoy them, one of the major factors that is argued is the pain felt by the animals themselves. Being on top of the food chain, as humans, we are the most capable of understanding other feelings and emotions associated with specific events. However, the majority of animals do not have this same capacity as us. One of the lobstermen interviewed for Wallace’s paper, Dick, shares that, “there’s a part of the brain in people and animals that let us feel pain, and lobsters’ brains don’t have this part.” (504 Wallace). Wallace immediately disagrees with this statement made by a local lobsterman, and continues to say that, “Dick’s statement is interesting in that its thesis is more or less echoed by the festival’s own pronouncement on lobsters and pain.” (504 Wallace). Wallace is arguing that the pain the lobster are feeling when thrown into the pot is unbearable, and that the lobster festival is essentially a large inhumane massacre. Pain can be looked at in many different ways, and how certain actions are seen as pain are also contributing factors. In many situation there is no possible way for us to be able to interpret any sort of pain except our own. This interpretation of pain is also present in Foer’s piece. The chicken being eaten around the table is assumed to have been hurt because it is on the children’s dinner plate. “My brother and I looked at each other, our mouths full of hurt chickens, and had simultaneous how-in-the-world-could-I-have-never-thought-of-that-before-and-why-on-earth-didn’t-someone-tell-me?”(2 Foer). The pain assumed by the once young children drew them away from the idea of enjoying the meat as it is. Animals are killed every single day in order to feed the masses, and dwelling on the potential pain of a single chicken is not going to change this practice. The overcomplication of the ideas of pain in which animals are enduring is what is essentially making this situation bigger than it needs to be.
DRAFT #3
(1000 words)
The True Value behind Consideration
The weather is warm and the sky is clear. The calm lake lay still and glassy, with no movement present on the surface. However, underneath that glassy surface a large landlocked salmon was taking a swim close to the surface. All in a matter of seconds a great bald eagle swoops down from his hidden perch, and snatches the salmon from the water. Just like that, the eagle has his lunch, and there is one less salmon in the quiet lake. This is a depiction of how the food chain works, and how it has been working since the beginning of time. Wallace, author of “Consider the Lobster”, shares his thoughts on how the eating of lobsters has become more inhumane than the basic food chain. With his argument based solely in the treatment of lobster, he is also extending to reach the points about the consideration of animals, and their treatment. The ideas Foer presents in his piece “Against Meat”, are also consistent with his inability to want to hurt animals. However, our specific values and the human lack for self-control, come through as strong themes to support Foer’s story. Lastly in Herzog’s essay, “Animals like Us”, he makes the tying point regarding the idea of what an animal truly is, and what it’s place is in society. All three of these texts make similar movements towards the inconsistency of ideas involving the rights of animals. That salmon will be dropped from the sky and ripped apart by the eagle before it can be enjoyed. The limits we put on ourselves based on our values and what we believe to considerate do not need to be complicated- it’s not complicated in nature. We are at the top of the food chain on this planet, and possess a higher capacity of understanding than any other creature walking on it. Therefore, the consideration that we give to food and the value that we have for the food that we eat is what makes us who we are. We overcomplicate the situation to the point where the true value behind the idea of consideration is ultimately lost.
When considering how we prepare and cook animals in order for us to enjoy them, one of the major factors that is argued is the pain felt by the animals themselves. Being on top of the food chain, as humans, we are the most capable of understanding other feelings and emotions associated with specific events. However, the majority of animals do not have this same capacity as us. One of the lobstermen interviewed for Wallace’s paper, Dick, shares that, “there’s a part of the brain in people and animals that let us feel pain, and lobsters’ brains don’t have this part.” (504 Wallace). Wallace immediately disagrees with this statement made by a local lobsterman, and continues to say that, “Dick’s statement is interesting in that its thesis is more or less echoed by the festival’s own pronouncement on lobsters and pain.” (504 Wallace). Wallace is arguing that the pain the lobster are feeling when thrown into the pot is unbearable, and that the lobster festival is essentially a large inhumane massacre. Pain can be looked at in many different ways, and how certain actions are seen as pain are also contributing factors. In many situations there is no possible way for us to be able to interpret any sort of pain except our own. This interpretation of pain is also present in Foer’s piece. The chicken being eaten around the table is assumed to have been hurt because it is on the children’s dinner plate. “My brother and I looked at each other, our mouths full of hurt chickens, and had simultaneous how- in- the- world- could- I- have- never- thought- of- that- before- and- why- on- earth- didn’t- someone- tell- me?”(2 Foer). The pain assumed by the once young children drew them away from the idea of enjoying the meat as it is. Animals are killed every single day in order to feed the masses, and dwelling on the potential pain of a single chicken is not going to change this practice. The overcomplication of the ideas of pain in which animals are enduring is what is essentially making this situation bigger than it needs to be.
The treatment received by animals is another controversial point that arises when discussing the overcomplication of idea involving the topic. The actual definition of what an animal is, is one of the deciding factors for many when considering whether the animal is considered food or not. In Herzog’s essay he talks about how before a woman named Judith met her soon to be husband, Joseph, she did not consider fish to be considered animals. She called herself a vegetarian, but continued to eat fish because she did not believe that they should be considered animals. Herzog writes, “After three years of philosophical to- and- fro, Judith sighed one evening and gave in: ‘OK, I see your point. Fish are animals.’”(1 Herzog). Judith’s definition of what an animal was did not change until Joseph managed to convince her otherwise. Joseph was a major in biology and would make the argument that, “both birds and fish are vertebrates, have brains, and lead social lives.”(1 Herzog). Without Joseph’s overwhelming persistence and evidence Judith would most likely still be a “vegetarian”, and she would still hold the same values that she had for the majority of her lifetime. Similar to the general classification of fish, lobsters are considered to be “giant sea insects”. This classification makes them appear to be almost less important of valued compared to other creatures that we from the sea. Wallace affirms the statement that, “it’s true that they are garbagemen of the sea, eaters of dead stuff” (499 Wallace). Lobster used to be seen as this and immediately considered as low- class food, that should be eaten only be the low class population. The definition and idea of lobsters has shifted as time has gone on, and the once peasant food has become something completely other. The definition of animals that we chose to accept greatly impacts the way in which we consider these animals. In most situations the definition of animals that we consider to value and understand the most is universal, and not meant to be overcomplicated. However, people’s individual values can come through here, and the individual opinions regarding what is rightly an animal and not is left up to interpretation.
Draft #4
Final Draft
Katie Gordon
Professor Jesse Miller
ENG-110 H6
11/19/18
We Consider it Food
The weather is warm and the sky is clear. The calm lake lay still and glassy, with no movement present on the surface. However, underneath that glassy surface a large landlocked salmon was taking a swim close to the surface. All in a matter of seconds a great bald eagle swoops down from his hidden perch, and snatches the salmon from the water. Just like that, the eagle has his lunch, and there is one less salmon in the quiet lake. This is a depiction of how the food chain works, and how it has been working since the beginning of time. David Foster Wallace, author of “Consider the Lobster”, shares his thoughts on how the eating of lobsters has become more inhumane than just the basic food chain. With his argument based solely in the treatment of lobster, he also extends to reach points about the consideration of animals, and their treatment. The ideas Jonathan Safran Foer presents in his piece “Against Meat”, are also consistent with his inability to want to hurt animals. However, specific values and the human lack for self-control, come through as strong themes to support Foer’s story. Lastly in Hal Herzog’s essay, “Animals like Us”, he makes the tying point regarding the idea of what an animal truly is, and what its place is in society. All three of these texts make similar movements toward the inconsistency of ideas involving the rights of animals. The limits placed on ourselves based on our values and what we believe to be considerate does not need to be complicated- it’s not complicated in nature. We are at the top of the food chain on this planet, and possess a higher capacity of understanding than any other creature walking on it. Therefore, the consideration that we give to food and the value that we have for the food that we eat is what makes us who we are. We overcomplicate the situation to the point where the true value behind the idea of consideration is ultimately lost. The value of that salmon to the eagle is simply food, and it is solely considered to be the next meal for this bird of prey. When we are able to look past all the overcomplications, that is exactly what lobster, chicken and many of the other popular dishes are as well- we consider it food.
When considering how we prepare and cook animals in order for us to enjoy them, one of the major factors that is argued is the pain felt by the animals themselves. As humans, being on top of the food chain makes us the most capable of understanding other feelings and emotions associated with specific events. However, the majority of animals do not possess the same level of capacity as we do. One of the lobstermen interviewed for Wallace’s paper, Dick, shares that, “there’s a part of the brain in people and animals that let us feel pain, and lobsters’ brains don’t have this part.” (Wallace 504). Wallace immediately disagrees with this statement made by a local lobsterman, and continues to say that, “Dick’s statement is interesting in that its thesis is more or less echoed by the festival’s own pronouncement on lobsters and pain.” (Wallace 504). Wallace is arguing that the pain the lobster are feeling when thrown into the pot is unbearable, and that the lobster festival is essentially a large inhumane massacre. Pain can be looked at in many different ways, and how certain actions are seen as pain are also contributing factors. In many situations there is no possible way for us to be able to interpret any sort of pain except our own. Foer demonstrates the misinterpretation of the possibility of pain in his piece. He describes a scene with the babysitter sitting at the table with the young Foer and his brother. The babysitter explains how she won’t eat the chicken because of it being hurt. The chicken being eaten around the table is assumed to have been hurt only because it is on the children’s dinner plate. The values that shoe choses to express leave the young boys stunned, “My brother and I looked at each other, our mouths full of hurt chickens, and had simultaneous how- in- the- world- could- I- have- never- thought- of- that- before- and- why- on- earth- didn’t- someone- tell- me?”(Foer 2). The pain assumed by the once young children drew them away from the idea of enjoying the meat as it is. Animals are killed every single day in order to feed the masses, and dwelling on the potential pain of a single chicken is not going to change this practice. The overcomplication of the ideas of pain in which animals are enduring is what is essentially making this situation bigger than it needs to be.
The treatment received by animals is another controversial point that arises when discussing the overcomplication of ideas involving the topic. The actual definition of what an animal is serves as one of the deciding factors for many when considering whether the animal is considered food or not. In Herzog’s essay he talks about how before this woman named Judith met her soon to be husband, Joseph, she did not consider fish to be considered animals. She called herself a vegetarian, but continued to eat fish because she did not believe that they should be considered animals. Judith’s definition of what an animal was did not change until Joseph managed to convince her otherwise. Joseph was a major in biology and would make the argument that, “both birds and fish are vertebrates, have brains, and lead social lives.”(Herzog 1). It was not until years later that Joseph was able to convince Judith, and one evening she pronounced, “‘OK, I see your point. Fish are animals.’”(Herzog 1). Without Joseph’s overwhelming persistence and evidence Judith would most likely still be a “vegetarian”, and she would still hold the same values that she had for the majority of her lifetime. Judith’s definition of an animal was changed by Joseph’s convincing, and with that her value changed as well.
The definition chosen for specific animals universally greatly impacts the way they can be treated and considered. Wallace talks specifically about lobsters in his essay. They have been called “giant sea insects”, since they walk along the surface and do not have the same appearance as many of the other fish in the sea. Their appearance and abundance immediately made them a perfect food for the lower class. Wallace affirms the statement that, “it’s true that they are garbagemen of the sea, eaters of dead stuff” (Wallace 499). The definition and idea of lobsters has shifted as time has gone on, and the once peasant food has become something entirely different. There is evidence to show how people’s ideas regarding both the treatment and definition of animals can be swayed by others and the general consensus of ideas. The definition of animals that we chose to accept greatly impacts the way in which we consider these animals. In most situations the definition of animals that we consider to value and understand the most is universal, and not meant to be overcomplicated. However, people’s individual values can come through here, and the individual opinions regarding what is rightly considered to be an animal and not is a major factor in the determining the values backing up the animals themselves.
The consideration of animals is shaped largely on what we consider as our personal values. The choice to not eat other animals is one that is usually determined by the way in which an individual is brought up, or an experience that made them more sensitive to the potential pain and cruelty of animals. All of the authors of these specific texts seem to have individual opinions regarding the way in which animals are treated, and each of them are based on a different set of values. It is these values that set our limits of understanding and consideration in different situations. The major point that Wallace is trying to reach in his well thought out piece, is the lack of consideration he believes that we possess when we throw the live lobsters into the boiling water. However, as shown in Herzog’s piece, the definition of what some people consider to be an animal, and worth eating is different for everyone. Foer’s essay also shows us more about the individual values people can possess, and how these values can be translated onto someone else. These three writers do a nice job demonstrating the limits that they place on their values, but it is up to the individuals themselves to figure out where their individual limits fall. Limits and values are important and necessary for everyone to possess to some extent, or we wouldn’t be human. However, when it comes down to it, the salmon is just a salmon. When the eagle snatches the salmon, it is not ending its life in some terrible way, the salmon’s life is just over. The food chain just works this way, and it can be interpreted in as many different as people would like. Although, in the end the one higher up on the food chain always wins, and the apparent pain and suffering endured is just how life is.
Works Cited
Foer, Jonathan Safran. “Against Meat.” Eating Animals, 11 Oct. 2009.
Herzog, Hal. “Animals Like Us.” Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat, 2011.
Wallace, David Foster. Consider The Lobster and Other Essays. New York :Little, Brown, 2005. Print.
