300-400 Words
Justyn Lopez
Eng. 110
Prof. Miller
xx xxxx xx
To Consider, or Not To Consider
When confronted with our own morals, as humans, we tend to have to take a step back and further evaluate certain situations in order to create the best possible decision based on these morals. However, morality varies within each and every individual, and so, we must ask ourselves: “what are the limits to which I can consider, or not consider one’s request of being considerate?”. The answer to this question heavily depends on whoever it is asking, because, based on the morality of the individual, the answer will differ. The ability to be considerate counts on: your own values and preferences, your ability of free will, and asking yourself; “even though I can, should I?”.
Based on the culture, and the environment one is brought up in, values and preferences will inevitably be different among each and everyone. Having such variety, and difference in preferences throughout the world forces the complication of whether or not it is okay to be considerate towards another. Cultural values play a significant role in these preferences. In India the cow is a sacred being; one that serves a higher purpose, and holds great symbolic value. Whereas, in America, no matter what street you walk down you will more than likely be able to find some sort of food chain that provides burgers, steak, and other nutritional parts of the cow. Differences in culture and opinion similar to this is exactly why not everyone is able to get their way.
Given the ability of free will we are able to decide any action or behavior of ourselves. Consideration of others falls into this category of action, or behavior. For instance, a common example of being considerate would be assisting an elderly person crossing the street, or even giving them a helping hand with groceries. Except, this question of: “what are the limits to which I should be considerate?”, greatly relies on the actions/behaviors of the individual. Certainly I can decide to be a gentleman and lend a helping hand, but at the same instance I could just walk away and pretend as if nothing ever happened. The ability of choice is given to all, and given this ability, one can do with it as they so please.
1000 Words
Justyn Lopez
Eng. 110
Prof. Miller
xx xxxx xx
To Consider, or Not To Consider
Prior to his death in 2008, author and essayist, David Foster Wallace composed: “Consider the Lobster”, in which he challenges the audience to find a deeper understanding of what it means to be considerate by explaining the torment lobsters face while being cooked alive. Wallace creates a sort of uncomfortable reaction for the audience as he describes in detail the horror and agony assumed to occur throughout the duration of cooking a lobster. Although his essay focuses on the lack of empathy for lobsters during the annual Maine Lobster Festival, the true concern behind Wallace’s writing centers around morality; or more specifically, the absence of. At the end of “Consider the Lobster”, Wallace leaves us with a rather thought provoking question of: “… what makes it feel truly okay, inside, to just dismiss the whole thing [morality] out of hand?” (Wallace 510) When confronted with our own morals, as humans, we tend to have to take a step back and further evaluate certain situations in order to create the best possible decision based on our integrity. However, morality varies within each and every individual, and so, we must ask ourselves: “what are the limits to which I should consider, or should not consider one’s request of acknowledgement?”. The answer to this question heavily depends on whoever it is asking, because, based on the morality of the individual, the answer will differ. The ability to be considerate confides in: your own values and preferences, your ability of free will, and asking yourself, “just because I can, should I?”.
Based on the culture, and the environment one is brought up in, values and preferences will inevitably be different among each and everyone. With such variety existing, as well as the immense difference in preferences throughout the world, forces the difficult situation of whether or not it is okay to be considerate towards another being. Cultural values play a significant role in these preferences. As an example, in India the cow is a sacred being; one that serves a higher purpose, and holds great symbolic value. Whereas, in America, no matter what street you walk down you will more than likely be able to find some sort of food chain that provides burgers, steak, or other nutritional parts of the cow. Wallace’s essay asks us to “Consider the Lobster”, but if we flip the script, could we then also say “consider the cow”? In this circumstance, division among individuals will surely arise. In one country the cow is a sacred being, and in the other it is common food. Based on your culture, or where you live, what you consider is going to be drastically different. In this example, the American does not even have to recognize the sacredness of the cow because it is not a part of American culture, and therefore, to consider not eating beef on behalf of Indian culture is essentially ignored due to American values and beliefs. The idea of “out of sight, out of mind” is beyond accurate to how we, as humans, think in respect to virtually all things.
Given the ability of free will, we are able to dictate any action or behavior of ourselves. Consideration of others falls into this category of action, or behavior. For instance, a common example of being considerate would be assisting an elderly person crossing the street, or even giving them a helping hand with groceries. Except, this question of: “what are the limits to which I should be considerate?”, greatly relies on the actions/behaviors of the individual. Certainly one can decide to be a gentleman and lend a helping hand, but in that same instance they could also just walk away and pretend as if nothing ever happened. The ability of choice is given to all, and given this ability, one can do with it as they so please. Granted this ability of free will and thought, we are also granted conflictions in the way we think. Often, when we are asked to consider anything, it usually means that we have some contradicting ideas. If an avid seafood enjoyer is asked to “Consider the Lobster”, they are also being asked to contradict themselves. Their initial beliefs claim that eating lobster is fine, and it is like eating any other animal; whereas, when being asked to be considerate, they have to go against their beliefs and sacrifice something which they enjoy. If someone makes a bad choice they are then forced to live with the consequences that will follow. Using the same idea, if someone makes a good choice, they will then also live with the consequences to follow. Let us use the classic example of vegans, and those who prefer to eat meat. To have a vegan ask a carnivore to consider their dietary choices, the choice of whether or not the carnivore considers the vegan’s request solely depends on the carnivore. Both the vegan, and carnivore, like all humans, are given free will, allowing them to have these dietary choices. Based upon these choices, the carnivore lives with the consequences of slaughtering and killing millions of animals. And so, the vegan must also live with the consequences of all of the weasels, voles, etc. that are shredded to bits by farm equipment. It is so simple to say that we are all making the correct choices, except, even when we believe we are doing the right thing, there are too many factors, and variables in the world that affect our ability to be considerate. Everyone has a choice in how they live their lives. To be fully considerate of all the horrible things that we do as humans would create a pure, utopian world. However, no matter the decisions, judgements, or evaluations we make of everything, someone is going to be upset no matter what.
Final
Justyn Lopez
Eng. 110
Prof. Miller
16 Mar. 2023
To Consider, or Not To Consider
Prior to his death in 2008, author and essayist, David Foster Wallace composed: “Consider the Lobster”, in which he challenges the audience to find a deeper understanding of what it means to be considerate by explaining the torment lobsters face while being cooked alive. Wallace creates a sort of uncomfortable reaction for the audience as he describes in detail the horror and agony assumed to occur throughout the duration of cooking a lobster. Although his essay focuses on the lack of empathy for lobsters during the annual Maine Lobster Festival–where all kinds of people gather together to observe and participate in the cooking and devouring of lobsters–the true concern behind Wallace’s essay centers around morality; or more specifically, the absence of. At the end of “Consider the Lobster”, Wallace leaves us with a rather thought-provoking question of: “… what makes it feel truly okay, inside, to just dismiss the whole thing [morality] out of hand?” (Wallace 510) When confronted with our own morals we tend to have to take a step back and further evaluate certain situations in order to create the best possible decision based on our integrity. However, morality varies within each and every individual, and so, we must ask ourselves: “what are the limits to which I should consider, or should not consider one’s request of acknowledgement?”. The answer to this question heavily depends on whoever it is asking, because, based on the morality of the individual, the answer will differ. The ability to be considerate confides in: your own values and preferences, your ability of free will, and the process of asking yourself, just because I can, should I?
Another author, Ross Anderson, wrote an article similar to Wallace’s “Consider the Lobster” titled: “What the Crow Knows”. In said article, Anderson details his personal beliefs, scientific facts, and the Indian religion of Jainism. Jainism claims the path to enlightenment and ultimate tranquility is obtained through the path of non-violence, and limiting all harm to living beings. What is observed in both Wallace’s essay, and Anderson’s article, is the perception of consciousness outside of the human organism. Wallace asks us in his essay “Is it all right to boil a sentient creature [lobster] alive just for our gustatory pleasure?” (Wallace 503) Everyone will have different answers to this question, but, as Anderson was referring to how crows have unusually large brains in his article, he stated that: “Neuroscientists can measure the computational complexity of brain activity, but no brain scan has yet revealed a precise neural signature of consciousness.” (Anderson 4) Statements and beliefs such as this can explain instances of consideration. Since we cannot measure consciousness of other organisms other than ourselves, most of society goes about their lives simply not caring. The majority of people think this way, and believe that if we cannot understand something then it should not concern us; or in this case, we do not have to consider the dilemma because we cannot understand it.
Based on the culture, and the environment one is brought up in, values and preferences will inevitably be different among each and everyone. With such variety existing, as well as the immense difference in preferences throughout the world, imposes the difficult situation of whether or not it is okay to be considerate towards another being. Cultural values play a significant role in these preferences. As an example, in India the cow is a sacred being; one that serves a higher purpose, and holds great symbolic value. Whereas, in America, no matter the street you walk down you will likely be able to find some sort of food chain that provides burgers, steak, or other nutritional parts of the cow. Wallace’s essay asks us to “Consider the Lobster”, but if we flip the script, do we then also say “consider the cow”? In this circumstance, division among individuals will surely occur. In one country the cow is a sacred being, and in the other it is common food. Based on your culture, or where you live, what you consider is going to be drastically different. In this example, the American does not have to recognize the sacredness of the cow because it is not solemnly valued in American culture. Instead, the cow is generally known to be food. Therefore, certain cultures have different values, and beliefs, which is why, in this example, the American does not have to consider excluding beef from their diet on behalf of Indian culture. The idea of “out of sight, out of mind” is beyond accurate to how we, as humans, think in respect to virtually all things.
Born with the ability of free will, we are able to dictate any action or behavior of ourselves. Consideration of others falls into this category of action, or behavior. A common example of being considerate is assisting an elderly person crossing the street, or even giving them a helping hand with groceries. Except, this question of: “what are the limits to which I should be considerate?”, greatly relies on the actions and behaviors of the individual. Certainly one can decide to be a moral agent and lend a helping hand, yet, in that same instance they could also just walk away and pretend as if nothing ever happened. The ability of choice is granted to all, and given this ability, one can do with it as they please. Including being considerate, or not. With our ability of free will and thought, comes conflicts in the way we think. Often, when we are asked to consider anything, it usually means that we have some contradicting ideas. If an avid seafood enjoyer is asked to “Consider the Lobster”, then they are also being asked to contradict themselves. Their initial beliefs claim that eating lobster is fine, and it is like eating any other meal; whereas, when being asked to be considerate, they have to go against their beliefs and sacrifice something which they enjoy. Consideration cannot exist without disagreement with yourself, and others. If someone makes a bad choice, they are then forced to live with the consequences that will follow. Using the same idea, if someone makes a good choice, they will also live with the consequences to follow. Let us use the classic example of vegans, and those who prefer to eat meat. To have a vegan ask a carnivore to consider their dietary choices, the choice of whether or not the carnivore considers the vegan’s request solely depends on the carnivore. Both the vegan, and carnivore, like all humans, are given free will, allowing them to have these dietary choices. Positioned upon these choices, the carnivore lives with the consequences of slaughtering and killing millions of animals. And so, the vegan must also live with the consequences of all of the weasels, voles, etc. that are shredded to bits by farm equipment. All choices have consequences, no matter what it is; even if that means being considerate.
While reading Wallace’s essay his discomfort towards animal cruelty is very observable, and even mentioned by himself a few times. Wallace asks the audience on multiple occasions to recognize his stance. On one page Wallace requests the audience to acknowledge “why it might be justifiable to inflict pain on them [animals] in order to eat them… Since pain is a totally subjective mental experience, we do not have direct access to anyone or anything’s pain but our own.” (Wallace 505) Ross Anderson, in his article, writes in agreement with Wallace, insisting that “Because we know that death looms, and grieve for the loss of richly imagined futures, it’s tempting to imagine that our pain is the most profound of all suffering.” (Anderson 6) In order to consider, we must replace selfishness with selflessness. Just because we can only measure, and experience human pain does not mean that we are the only organism on the planet capable of these experiences. Yet, even if we were able to turn the tables and truly understand the pain we inflict on other beings, would we even care then?
It is so simple to say that we are all making the correct choices. Except, even when we believe we are doing the right thing, there are too many factors in the world that influence our ability to be considerate. Everyone has a choice in how they live their lives. To be fully considerate of all the horrible things that we do as humans would create a pure, utopian world. However, no matter the decisions, judgements, or evaluations we make of everything, someone is going to be upset no matter what.
Works Cited
Andersen, Ross. “Do Animals Have Feelings?” The Atlantic, 4 May 2021, www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/03/what-the-crow-knows/580726.
Wallace, David K. “Consider the Lobster and Other Essays.” Little, Brown eBooks, Little, Brown, Jan. 2007, ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BB05242948.
