Project #3 final assignment for peer review
1000+ words for peer review
Julia Moura
Professor Jesse Miller
English 110- G
17 April 2019
Project #3
In life, there are numerous internal struggles we all encounter. These usually revolve
around our moral views and beliefs. These struggles are sometimes vocalized in certain
circumstances and the discussion can only be pushed to a certain point. This can be connected to
an article written by David Foster Wallace, “Consider the Lobster”. This article touches upon
many difficult topics that cover a wide range on controversial viewpoints which allow the reader
to really ponder their views on certain matters. Wallace’s main argument, “there are limits to
what even interested persons can ask of each other,” involves the idea that there are certain
breaking points on issues that some may never agree with the other on. Many have varying
viewpoints that they will stick by no matter what. Wallace is sure to include many different
aspects of this emotional struggle with important issues, such as economics, animal cruelty and
social standings between humans and animals. Wallace’s viewpoints can be compared to many
others’, such as Ross Anderson who wrote an article, “What the Crows Know”, discussing his
viewpoint on the many issues revolving around animals, their importance to us a humans, their
interactions with us and there overall conscience levels. Another opinion on such matters is Hal
Herzog’s, he wrote an article called “Animals Like Us” which discusses the social standings of
animals in comparison to those of humans as well as their values with animal cruelty and
Moura 2
whether what we do should be acceptable or not. The three authors together all bring forth such
critical and controversial viewpoints that are widely discussed but usually never agreed upon.
Wallace brings in all of his viewpoints through the simple yet complex conversation of
the lobster, “the spider of the sea” (Wallace 1). Wallace makes you take into consideration how
we treat the lobsters and for what purpose. In some cases, it is due to the economy. Lobsters
bring in a lot of money, in many different ways. In Wallace’s article he talks about the Maine
Lobster Festival, which is an annual festival that occurs yearly and brings in a large number of
tourists and regulars who are willing to spend large amounts of money all due to something
revolving around the lobster. All aspects of the festival have some sort of impact on the
economy, “Tourism and lobster are the midcoast region’s two main industries, and they’re both
warm-weather enterprises, and the Maine Lobster Festival represents less an intersection of the
industries than a deliberate collision, joyful and lucrative and loud” (Wallace 1). With these
industries being the driving forces of the midcoast, it is important that they thrive, to keep the
economy in this area booming. Other creatures and animals can also bring in this sort of income,
in the same areas as well as in others. The food, shipping and tourist industries are big parts of
our economy from both a large scale and a small scale.
The downfall of lobster and other animals being such a large factor in the economy is the
horrifying outcome many of these animals must face, death. It brings in such an emotional aspect
and tests many individuals’ boundaries. The main issue is the moral aspects of what an animal
really is. Many ponder their own beliefs in what they consider animals to be. For instance, why is
it that for most, the slaughter and consumption of a dog or cat sounds inhumane, but for an
animal such as a lobster or a cow it is a sufficient source of food? Why do many accept that some
animals can be used for sustenance while others cannot? What exactly makes an animal an
Moura 3
animal? These are some questions that Herzog recognizes deeply in his article, after being
accused of feeding cats to his sons snake, “In the following days, several questions kept nagging
me. My accuser had inadvertently forced me to confront questions I had never really considered
about the moral burdens of bringing animals into our lives. Snakes don’t eat carrots and
asparagus. Given Sam’s need for meat, was it ethical to keep a boa constrictor for a pet? Is
having a pet that gets its daily ration of meat from a can of cat food morally preferable to living
with a snake? And are there circumstances in which feeding kittens to boa constrictors might
actually be morally acceptable?” (Herzog 4). If one thinks deeply on this concept of what is
acceptable it really influences how many perceive the animals they are dealing with and what is
acceptable to society. From some standpoints, it is understandable for relationships to form with
any animals, “Our relationships with animals can also be emotionally complicated. Twenty years
ago, Carolyn fell head over heels for a 1,100-pound manatee” (Herzog 2). This shows that
relationships can be formed with many different animals, including one that many forget to
recognize, the manatee. This can further lead us into the discussion of what makes us superior to
an animal is they also possess the ability to feel emotions and form relationships that are
meaningful.
Animals are viewed differently by all individuals, some feel a strong emotional
connection to them and want to give them everything while others view them as a source of food
or useful tool in many industries. What many don’t think about is what the animals think, what is
their level of consciousness? This is something that Anderson tackles in his article, he defies the
simple answer of humans being superior and makes the reader question where animals stand in
relation to humans. “Monkeys that spotted a stalking cat let out a specific call. Deer weren’t the
only ones that recognized and used these calls; the lion tracker who had been with me in the park
Moura 4
did too” (Anderson 5). This passage from Anderson signifies the connection of humans working
in cohesiveness with animals. It shows almost a societal equivalent between the two. They all
work together in order to survive and are able to connect with each other without even speaking
the same language. On a deeper level it has something to say about the consciousness of animals.
It shows that animals are able to adapt social cues and heed warnings towards others of their own
kind. It also gives a superiority to the deer in how they are able to recognize the monkeys’ calls
as a warning for predators when in fact most humans believe they could not think and be so
comprehensible.
