Peer Review for Bryan (For PDF please see Peer Review page)
Bryan McGrath
English 110 – G
4/5/19
Consider This
The definition of considerate is stated as “thoughtful of the rights and feelings of
others”. When looking back on the claims of David Foster Wallace concerning the
underlying thoughts and position of the life of the lobster and their inevitable fate, it is
naive to not question the consideration of these animals. After taking a closer look at
articles including “What the Crows Know”, by Ross Andersen and Hal Herzog’s
“Animals Like Us”, the idea of consideration in the process of the American food
industry regarding the lives and “feelings” of these animals is tainted. It is evident in
these three articles that these animals have the awareness and recognition of what is
going on but as a culture across the nation it is not seen and prioritized by the mass
population. This shows the overall and underlying point that as a society people in
general tend to prioritize their feelings in a way that they either turn a blind eye or do not
care as long as it benefits them to an extent. Consideration applies to the mass of the
knowing, from these articles it shown that these animals do indeed know which shows
the lack of consideration and superiority that at least in America society feels over the
natural human beings.
In David Foster Wallace’s article, “Consider the Lobster”, he talks about the
Maine Lobster Festival and the impact of the copious amounts of lobster that is killed
and eaten at this event annually. In this article he dives into the different tasks and ways
in which the lobsters, living breathing animals, are killed for the mass enjoyment of all
the people who attend this event. Wallace talks about the boiling alive of these
Commented [JM1]: Really good hook here, be sure to
include where you got this information from.
Commented [2]: This is a nice start to your
introduction but try to include the text you are
referencing from David Foster Wallace. While our class
would understand what story you are bringing into your
argument, someone else might get confused if you just
include the author and not the text you will be
referencing.
Commented [JM3]:
Commented [JM4R3]: You did a really good job here
of connecting the three article together and ensuring a
creatures and the torture that these lobsters are put through in there last living
moments. This calls into question the consideration of the chef and the mass population
in general when it comes down to the killing of animals for personal enjoyment. From
this article reveals a speculation that the process in which this event is held and the
process in which the killing of these creatures is not taken into consideration at all. The
pain and suffering of what the lobsters endure is not something that is given any
sympathy towards them. This shows that as a society, especially in the food industry
shown in this article, is a scenario in which we as people do what is best for us without
the consideration of the animals present who do indeed know more than the society
perceives when it comes to their surroundings. It is expected since these creatures
know what is going on they simply do not prefer to be boiled alive but society turns a
blind eye to this because it would hinder their personal gain in the effectiveness of killing
them for food. In David Foster Wallace’s article concerning the livelihood and the
traumatic way in which these creatures are murdered, and in the case of the Maine
Lobster Festival mass murdered, it reveals the way in which society especially today
turns the blind eye without much consideration of these living breathing creatures that
do indeed realize and understand what they do go through even though the may not
feel all of the pain in the process.
In Ross Andersen’s article, “What the Crow Knows”, he talks about the
consciousness of the animals and the evolvement of how these animals know what is
going on in their surroundings and their ability to understand what is happening.
Andersen specifically talks about different bird species experiences, “A grey parrot once
amassed a 900-word vocabulary, and in India, a few have been trained to recite the
Commented [JM8]:
Commented [JM9R8]: Here you could consider
including a direct quote from the article that gives the
lobster more of a meaningful attachment as a living
creature who feels pain.
Commented [10]: While I like how you are
summarizing “Consider the Lobster,” I feel that you can
include a text-on-text moment by including what
Wallace says in the article about this suffering of the
lobster and what you think about this idea wither you
agree, disagree, or undecided. On page 6 paragraph 3
there is a part where they describe the lobster “coming
to life in boiling water” that you could include or bring
up the “cerebral cortex” on page 5 paragraph 4.
Commented [JM11]: Although I really enjoy this piece
of your essay, I believe you could reword it differently, it
is almost a little repetitive at some moments. Maybe
adding a quotation then elaborate what you believe it
demonstrates could be used here.
Commented [12]: While I like the idea of what your
going for in this paragraph, your own oar(voice) seems
to be missing on this topic. Once you include a quote,
try to describe what you think of this idea of
consideration and why people look away from this
situation.
Commented [JM13]: I do think that introducing the
article is very important, maybe considering putting this
into your intro so you can more solely focus on your
elaboration of your thesis instead.
Vedic mantras. But birds have only rarely assembled verbal symbols into their own,
original proto-sentences”. This quotation shows the overwhelming development of how
these birds have evolved and their level of comprehension and consciousness. This
research and findings from Anderson in this article show that since the birds and
animals in general are shown to be understanding what is going on around them the
consideration that us as a society project onto these animals is relatively non-existent.
This takes into question the thought of what as a society are we willing to turn a blind
eye towards. In “Animals like Us”, Herzog presents the example of one woman
explaining that she is a vegetarian but only eats fish is a complicated twist and red flag
in the thought process of the society towards animals and the use of them for food. By
saying one is a vegetarian but only eats fish is not only a contradiction but also
questions why she is able to turn the blind eye to fish who still do indeed know and
understand their surroundings and still try to hold onto the values of not killing animals
instead. To be considerate is to know and understand the ones who surround you rather
it be an animal or a human or even a fish and mammals in general. Andersen helps
explain the research and science that is brought into the discussion about what animals
in general can understand and explains even more that society as a whole continues to
turn a blind eye towards it for the benefit of themselves.
When one talks about the rights of another human being it is the freedom of
unlawful torture, imprisonment and execution. In the case for animal rights it is the act of
fair and humane treatment which is to say that are marked as sympathetic,
compassionate and considerate towards those animals. In Andersen’s article, “What the
Crow Knows”, about the science behind what animals actually know helps pave the way
Commented [14]: e
Commented [JM15]: Really good support of evidence
here.
Commented [16]: While I like that it connects back to
your thesis, try to include how this relates with
Wallace’s idea of consideration. What are the
similarities between each text you are referencing?
Commented [JM17]: Maybe divide these two sections
into two paragraphs just because the paragraph is
long.
Commented [18]: I would make this its own separate
paragraph due to bringing in someone else’s
conversation. This should help with the flow of your
paper when bringing in another person perceptive.
Commented [19]: Instead of woman say Judith Black
Commented [20]: I like where you are going with this
idea but I think you should include text of when Judith
Black and her husband were arguing and how she
began to change her mind (to show how she became
considerate) as they continued to argue for 3 years.
Commented [JM21]: Consider adding in a quote here
to really strengthen your point.
Commented [JM22]: Good comparison, maybe see if
you can then connect it to the thesis.
for the retrospective violation that David Foster Wallace presents about boiling alive the
lobster that society as a whole is willing to turn the blind eye towards. The question is,
are we personally alright with the violation of these animals not being given humane
rights if it concludes with personal benefit? In Herzog’s article, “Animals Like Us”, he
describes numerous variations of examples of people trying to rectify or to the best of
their ability help out this problem that they see. Although he describes example of
numerous people switching on and off the vegetarian or pecatarian lifestyle, it is no
benefit to the issue as a whole and even has its own underlying problems as well. The
major concept is that as a society we still deep down perceive to reveal this survival of
the fittest mentality that does not take in consideration the human rights of animals if it
prevents an individual from their desired dinner. As people we are animals too, survival
of the fittest is and will always be ingrained in our blood. The question is, will this
thought process of restricting human rights towards animals evolve into one that strips
the human being from human rights. That’s the next step. Is society creating a scenario
in which we will eventually take that step?
*
**Dear Bryan,
Overall, I found this is an excellent start to your paper. I would consider just double
checking your grammar, and be sure to be consistent with the spelling of Andersen’s name. I
think that all of your points are very strong and think with a little more elaboration of your
descriptions the paper can really be strengthened. Also, be sure to include some more textual
evidence, direct quotes used correctly can really bring in the readers attention to others views,
outside of your own statements in the paper. I think I can see where you want this paper to go,
and with just a little more time you will get it straight.
Commented [23]: I like this question that you present
to the reader because this is not an easy answer for
the reader. Continue to do this done the line when
writing your paper and conclusion.
Commented [JM24]: This is a really good point,
consider bringing in more evidence from the text itself
to explain the claim even further.
Commented [25]: Dear Bryan,
Overall I found your paper is in a good place right now.
You are able to go in-depth with the articles abstract
ideas while saying question the promote the reader to
think about the moral dilemma that is presented. Where
I feel you are lacking in is the inclusion of text evidence
to enhance your points that you are making. Due to the
lack of quote, I feel you don’t have as many text-on-text
moments that you could have. Beside that, you have a
couple grammar errors and flow issues. Once you fix
those issues you should be good to go.
-Alex Smyth
Peer Review for Alex
Alex Smyth
Professor Jesse Miller
English 110 – Section G
April 17 2019
Reaching The Midline
In “Consider the Lobster” David Foster Wallace argues that it is difficult to think
rationally into whether a lobster feels pain. Wallace mentions very human like characteristic that
the lobster displays when being cooked. What this leads to is a problem that others shy away
from due to the uncomfortable nature of this topic. While that is the easiest method is to avoid
the topic, what Wallace tries to do is bring this problem attention so others could think over such
a grey topic. Wallace asked question like “Is it alright to boil a sentient creature alive just for our
gustatory pleasure?” This isn’t supposed to make you uncomfortable but to question/challenge
your own morals and reconsider based on what is presented in front of you because thinking
people can only answer so many questions.
A personal dilemma I faced was when I was around 2 years old, I had a dog named
pepper. She was lazy, but would always comforted you when you had been lonely. Pepper had
bad legs, probably due to how she was bred, so she couldn’t get too excited or she could hurt
herself. Jumping to when I was 7 around winter time, I got off my bus to find that something
horrible had happened. My dog had chased after the neighbor’s cat and that’s when my worst
nightmare began. Pepper had lost the ability to walk. She had slipped on ice trying to chase the
cat and crashed on her side as my nana helped her into the house. My parents and I had two
decisions, euthanize her or let her suffer to an insurmountable degree. I ran into my room hiding
from the choice that was presented in front of me. I couldn’t rationally think in this situation, but
Commented [JM1]: Here you could maybe think about
adding in an interesting hook
Commented [2]: Could provide more text evidence
with David Foster Wallace.
Commented [JM3]: Maybe reword this here, it causes
a little confusion.
Commented [4]: Include page number, proper
my parents had made the choice without my input. We gave ourselves a day to enjoy pepper’s
company one last time, then came the fated day. While that was arguably the most rational
decision, emotionally my parents and I couldn’t just let her go. I went with my father to the vet
while my mother stayed home bailing her eyes out. Personally, I wanted to stay with my mom,
but felt I had to man up. Also, I didn’t want to leave Pepper’s side just as she did for me at a
young age. Once we reached the destination, we watched the flicker of light from her eyes dim
out. Today, I still don’t know if I made the right decision or if there was a better option, all I
knew was she would no longer frolic around our house anymore. The last thing I remember was
mourning the day after during her birthday that she wasn’t around for.
Hal Herzog in “Animals Like Us” presents a similar view of being open to uncomfortable
topics and make others question their own belief system as Wallace does. A key example of this
concept was when Hal Herzog mentions Judith Black belief change when talking to her husband
“Judith decided that it was wrong to kill animals just because they taste good. But what exactly is
an animal? While it is obvious that dogs and cats and cows and pigs are animals, it was equally
clear to Judith that fish were not…when they first met, Joseph, himself a meat eater, tried to
convince Judith that there is not a shred of moral difference between eating a Cornish hen and
eating a Chilean sea bass.” Judith had this argument with her husband for around 3 years at the
dinner table of this moral dilemma, speaking openly on what they agreed with and disagreed
with till they finally reach a conclusion. Judith finally gave in to her husband saying “‘OK, I see
your point. Fish are animals.’” This change in opinion showed that the moral of eating animals
can waver even when you start with a very firm belief. When openly considering each
possibility, it’s hard to come to a clear conclusion on what an animal could be or what we should
eat.
Commented [JM6]: I really like your use of your own
emotions being involved, maybe consider adding in a
connection to another article to compare to it.
Commented [JM7]: Judith Black’s belief
Commented [JM8]: Maybe add in more of your own
opinion here and compare your thoughts to the quotes.
h
While others find it hard to find an answer, others such as the jains believe that their way
of thinking is right. What Jainism has a commandment that forbids violence against all living
creatures, of course including animals. The Jains had made this grey area of morality and
pleasure into a clear black and white issue, violence is bad towards any living creature. Their
thought process is straight to the point. Inflicting violence upon any thing that is noted as living
is against what they stand for. The monks show this practice by “walking barefoot in the cool
morning hours to avoid car travel, an activity they regard as irredeemably violent, given the
damage it inflicts on living organisms, from insects to larger animals… During monsoon season,
they forgo travel, to avoid splashing through puddles filled with microbes.” Unlike in most
Americans, where we can decide about eating a burger due to the pleasure of eating one but Jains
maintain their belief and go to extremes to avoid hurting any animal no matter how small.
But why go to such lengths? Well, it is believed that “animals are conscious beings that
experience, in varying degrees, emotions analogous to human desire, fear, pain, sorrow, and
joy.” The Jain’s see animals as some us now look at animals, as conscious beings. While
research hasn’t conclude yet on what emotion are present in animals. It’s clear that the Jains
believe that they experience similar emotions as humans would.
I was never raised in this sort of manner but I’m curious to those who weren’t Jainism
and then converted over. Was it hard to transition if you ate meat before going to this belief? Did
you ever waver and second guess what you were following due to the absence of meat? While I
would argue that their view is black and white is there ever an acception to cause that grey
midline to form? I don’t think that I could become apart of this religion due to the pleasurable
moments I’ve had experience with meat and other foods that involve killing living creatures. It’s
Commented [9]: paragraph of own oar about Hal
Herzog
Commented [JM10]: These points are all very good
and cohesive, I would consider adding where the
information came from as well as maybe diving deeper
into what the quote means.
Commented [JM11]: This is a good point, you could
maybe bring this into the beginning of your paragraph
as well to really reiterate your thoughts.
Commented [JM12]: Here you could add in a
connection to “Against Meat” and how getting rid of
meat occurs for religious reasons but also for other
values.
not that I don’t sympathize with their cause but I’m selfish when it comes to what I eat and I
wouldn’t want to give that up.
*** Dear Alex,
Overall, I believe this is an excellent start to your paper. I think that all your overall
points and support are very strong. Be sure to include all article citations and page numbers.
Also, be sure to double check grammar and sentence structure. Some of the sentences were a
little bit confusing, and I think maybe if you reword some of them it will be better. The quotes
you choose were very strong, but I think you could add in some more supporting points and
elaborations of the interpretation of the data. Try to dive a little deeper into the conversation. I
think all of your personal inclusions are also very good and could even be used in comparison
and contrast to the other articles for an even stronger claim.
Commented [JM13]: Good use of personal emotions
here, maybe add in a real life instance of you feeling as
though you are selfish for not giving up meat.
Peer Review for Nick
Nick Triggs
Professor Jesse Miller
ENG-110 G
17 April 2019
To Eat or Not to Eat
In many things that humans do the question of whether it is ethical often arises. One of the
greatest ethical dilemmas is found in our relationship with animals. Most people grow up with a diet that
includes eating meat like beef and pork. With that in mind, a majority of those people do not take into
consideration the fact that these animals are living things with consciousness. People take value in certain
animals’ lives like cats and dogs, but when it comes to other animals like cows and chickens, the value
isn’t considered to be the same. Why do people eat animals like cow or chickens but are mortified at the
idea of eating a dog? What really determines a person’s outlook on the moral quandary that is our
relationship with animals and if that relationship is worth giving up for people.
David Foster Wallace uses his piece, Consider the Lobster, to talk about the issue of killing and eating
lobsters. Wallace uses the lobster as a way of depicting the inhumanity of the way that people boil
lobsters and not even bat an eye. Wallace provides plenty of evidence throughout the piece describing
how lobsters, like other animals, feel pain when they die. When visiting the Maine Lobster Festival for
the first time and after watching lobsters pile over one another into the worlds largest lobster pot Wallace
defends that the festival isn’t just a giant medieval torture-fest. He states, “I believe that animals are less
morally important than human beings…I have an obvious selfish interest in this belief, since I like to eat
certain kind of animals and want to be able to keep doing it.” (Wallace). Much like many other people,
Wallace enjoys eating meat even though he knows that the animal experiences pain when they are killed
for food. However, Wallace is not willing to stop eating meat. Wallace wrote Consider the Lobsteras a
Commented [JM1]: Very interesting hook, really gets
the readers attention.
Commented [JM2]: Good usage of rhetorical
questions, be sure to include another question mark at
t
way to get people to think about their values and the relationship that they have with animals in their
lives. For Wallace, he believes that his relationship is worth giving up in order to keep eating meat
In the piece Animals Like Usby Hal Herzog, Judith Black is a woman that thinks she has found a
solution to this ethical dilemma. When she was only twelve years old, she decided that killing animals is
wrong. With this in mind she became a vegetarian with a slight catch, “while it was quite obvious that
dogs and cats and cows and pigs are animals, it was equally clear to Judith that fish were not. They just
didn’t feel like animals to her. So for the next 15 years, this intuitive biological classification system
enabled Judith, who has a PhD in anthropology, to think of herself as a vegetarian, yet still experiences
the joys of smoked Copper River salmon.” (Herzog). After deciding to become a “vegetarian” she never
considered fish to be an animal, so she could keep eating fish. Judith was faced with the difficult decision
to either give up fish and still be a vegetarian or stop thinking of herself as a vegetarian. When Judith
gave up vegetarianism, she made a difficult decision that she wasn’t willing to give up eating meat. Like
Wallace, she realizes and accepts that our reasons for killing animals is ethically and morally
questionable, but she isn’t willing to give up eating meat for it. For Judith, being able to eat meat is more
important than being able to say that she is a vegetarian. Like Judith, David Foster Wallace knows that he
may not be taking the moral high ground by eating lobster or animals, despite the knowledge he has on
their treatment, he does not think giving up meat is not worth giving up for him. I believe that Herzog
chose to put in Judith’s story because it shows that people, even after many years of dedication, some
things are just not worth completely giving up for people. For other people giving up meat is an easy
decision and are more than willing to give up eating meat.
In the reading What the Crow Knows, by Ross Anderson, talks about the fact that animals are
capable of doing intelligent things, yet they are not really seen as conscious beings. Once on stops
ignoring an animal’s consciousness it makes eating meat a very difficult task. An ancient religion in India
known as Jainism follow the commandment that forbids violence against humans and animals. The
Commented [JM3]: This paragraph shows some
excellent support to your claim as well as some
unneeded information. I think you can take away from
some of the summary portion of his article and include
more support to the inhumane way of eating animals.
Commented [JM4]: Good support here, instead of
following it up with more of a summary maybe add in
some more explanation for why this part was an
important inclusion.
Commented [JM5]: Good job bringing in a comparison
between two of the articles and how they work together
in one claim.
followers of Jainism live a very restricting lifestyle in order to follow the commandment “The monks
refuse to eat root vegetables, lest their removal from the earth disturb delicate subterranean ecosystems.
Their white robes are cotton, not silk, which would require the destruction of silkworms. During monsoon
season, they forgo travel, to avoid splashing through puddles with microbes, whose existence Jains
posited well before they appeared under Western microscopes.” (Anderson). The monks that follow the
religion are capable of showing levels of restraint that a majority of people will never have. They believe
that animals are conscious beings that like humans, also experience emotions like fear, pain and sorrow.
When one makes the choice to become Jain, they essentially give up everything they have ever known
and trading it for nothing. The value that animals play in the world of Jainism is more than just taking the
moral high ground, it is taking a completely new lifestyle. The Jain monks decided that animals are equal
to humans and deserve the same treatment that we get
** Dear Nick,
Overall, this is a great start to your paper. I think that your ideas flow very nicely and
everything is cohesive. Just like most of my comments state, I think you can strengthen your
argument with more information put towards the arguments. If you draw away from the
summarizing and more on your thesis your paper will be even better. Just be sure to double
check for any grammar errors and try adding in some more quotations.
Commented [JM6]: Almost an extreme version here,
good inclusion. Maybe consider a comparison here to
another article.
