Kayla Lowe
Prof. Miller
ENG110-H2
19 November 2018
Paper 3: 300 Words
As humans, we ask each other things all the time. We ask for favors, we ask for Items, we ask for affection and so on. The question we must ask ourselves and what author David Foster Wallace explores is if there is a limit to how much we can ask of our fellow human beings. Wallace claims “there are limits to what even interested persons can ask of each other”. In his word these “interested persons” can be referred to as people with thoughtful insight on the favor or change being asked of them. Wallace is saying even if someone is asked to do something, that is fully researched and considered from all different perspectives, it doesn’t guarantee someone will do what is asked of them. The logical solutions don’t always line up with people’s emotional obligations.
Man has the unique ability of choice when compared to other organisms. We can choose to be considerate towards others and the world surrounding us or we can choose not to. The choice is ours. In Wallace’s essay “Consider the Lobster” he looks at human’s choice when cooking said lobster. Fellow writers Caitlin Doughty and Hal Herzog also analyze the role of human choice and consideration. Doughty responds to the topic of death and cremation in a radio interview while Herzog looks at human behavior surrounding animals in his article “Animals Like Us”. In relation to human choice and consideration discussed by these authors, there is a consensus. The only way people will consider a change in their behavior if is said change benefits them in a way. If the cost of changing interferes with human traditions or beliefs then the majority of people will choose to omit their consideration and ignore the change.
Kayla Lowe
Prof. Miller
ENG110-H2
19 November 2018
Paper 3: 500 Words
As humans we ask each other things all the time. We ask for favors, we ask for Items, we ask for affection and so on. The question we must ask ourselves and what author David Foster Wallace explores, is if there is a limit to how much we can ask of our fellow human beings. Wallace claims “there are limits to what even interested persons can ask of each other”. In his word these “interested persons” can be referred to as people with thoughtful insight on the favor or change being asked of them. Wallace is saying even if someone is asked to do something, that is fully researched and considered from all different perspectives, it doesn’t guarantee someone will do what is asked of them. The logical solutions don’t always line up with people’s emotional obligations.
Man has the unique ability of choice when compared to other organisms. We can choose to be considerate towards others and the world surrounding us or we can choose not to. The choice is ours. In Wallace’s essay “Consider the Lobster” he looks at human’s choice when cooking said lobster. Fellow writers Caitlin Doughty and Hal Herzog also analyze the role human choice and consideration. Doughty responds to the topic of death and cremation in a radio interview while Herzog looks at human behavior surrounding animals in his article “Animals Like Us”. In relation to human choice and consideration discussed by these authors there is a consensus. The only way people will consider a change in their behavior if is said change benefits them in a way. If the cost of changing interferes with human traditions or beliefs, then majority of people will choose to omit their consideration and ignore the change.
As much as people love animals, majority of humans don’t see their lives as equality valuable as their own. Herzog’s article “Animals Like Us” features a collection of stories that contain conflicting human- animal relationships. One example is about a manatee named Snooty and his relationship with his caregiver Carolyn. The two are practically inseparable. Their bond is so deep in fact, the sea cow will refuse to eat without the presences of his beloved caretaker. Their relationship became more complex when Carolyn’s “husband accused her of having her priorities screwed up, of loving a half-ton blob of blubber and muscle more than she loved him” (Herzog pg. 3). Here is an example of an animal’s life being seen as less than a human’s. Snooty is clearly capable of showing love and affection to Carolyn and is thankful for her kindness towards him but his emotions, however human they may seem do not make him equal to her spouses. This story amplifies Herzog’s later discussion about the “troubled middle”. Even though we say one thing our actions contradict it. Even though people say they value animals, when it comes down to a human’s life and a manatee’s, the human is the first choice. That is what this comes down to. We choose to value our lives over animals. We choose to make ourselves the superior being.
Kayla Lowe
Prof. Miller
ENG110-H2
19 November 2018
Paper 3: 1000 words
As humans we ask each other things all the time. We ask for favors, we ask for Items, we ask for affection and so on. The question we must ask ourselves and what author David Foster Wallace explores, is if there is a limit to how much we can ask of our fellow human beings. Wallace claims “there are limits to what even interested persons can ask of each other”. In his word these “interested persons” can be referred to as people with thoughtful insight on the favor or change being asked of them. Wallace is saying even if someone is asked to do something, that is fully researched and considered from all different perspectives, it doesn’t guarantee someone will do what is asked of them. The logical solutions don’t always line up with people’s emotional obligations.
Man has the unique ability of choice when compared to other organisms. We can choose to be considerate towards others and the world surrounding us or we can choose not to. The choice is ours. In Wallace’s essay “Consider the Lobster” he looks at human’s choice when cooking said lobster. Fellow writers Caitlin Doughty and Hal Herzog also analyze the role human choice and consideration. Doughty responds to the topic of death and cremation in a radio interview while Herzog looks at human behavior surrounding animals in his article “Animals Like Us”. In relation to human choice and consideration discussed by these authors there is a consensus. The only way people will consider a change in their behavior if is said change benefits them in a way. If the cost of changing interferes with human traditions or beliefs, then majority of people will choose to omit their consideration and ignore the change.
As much as people love animals, majority of humans don’t see their lives as equality valuable as their own. Herzog’s article “Animals Like Us” features a collection of stories that contain conflicting human- animal relationships. One example is about a manatee named Snooty and his relationship with his caregiver Carolyn. The two are practically inseparable. Their bond is so deep in fact, the sea cow will refuse to eat without the presences of his beloved caretaker. Their relationship became more complex when Carolyn’s “husband accused her of having her priorities screwed up, of loving a half-ton blob of blubber and muscle more than she loved him” (Herzog pg. 3). Here is an example of an animal’s life being seen as less than a human’s. Snooty is clearly capable of showing love and affection to Carolyn and is thankful for her kindness towards him but his emotions, however human they may seem do not make him equal to her spouses. This story amplifies Herzog’s later discussion about the “troubled middle”. Even though we say one thing our actions contradict it. Even though people say they value animals, when it comes down to a human’s life and a manatee’s, the human is the first choice. That is what it comes down to. We choose to value our lives over animals. We choose to make ourselves the superior being.
David Foster Wallace also examines human choice when it comes to our consumption of animals. Is it necessary to eat animals? Agriculture is one of the booming businesses of our time, specifically the raising and slaughtering of animals. Most take part in the consumption of animals but some do not. Those who don’t eat meat feel morally conflicted or their religions outline the unholiness of feasting on other living beings. If some groups of people, see an obvious problem in the way the world treats and consumes animals why don’t all human see it? Wallace outlines his reasons for still eating meat, saying “I have acknowledges that (a) I have an obvious selfish interest in this belief, since I like to eat certain animals and want to be able to keep doing it, and (b) I haven’t succeeded in working out any sort of personal ethical system in which the belief is truly defensible” (Wallace pg.4-5). His inner turmoil applies to many people who dare to consider the effects their behaviors are having on other living creatures. In his reasoning there is a clear distinction between eating for pleasure and eating for survival. While in the past meat may have been our only option, now there are many feasible alternatives. That being said our current consumption is very much self-driven. Wallace’s conflict can be directly tied back to human consideration. Majority choose to ignore the wants and needs of animals for their own benefit and consider our wellbeing before animals.
The reason we place our self above animals is rooted in our cultures and their value systems. Depending on which region in the world you reside your relationship with animals differs. Herzog uses dogs as an example. In western culture dogs are seen as a pet or companion. There are made to be a part of the family however in countries like Korea they are seen as another source of food. In contrast most Americans see a cow and think of a delicious meal, while in India cows are sacred creatures and would never be used for food. In each of these areas of the world their perspectives on animal lives overlap or conflict with the opposing cultures.None of the cultures have cruel intentions they just live as they always have. A person’s perception of animal lives is strongly influenced by their upbringing. If the people who raised you, consider animals as lower than them then you are most likely going to think similarly, and the opposite is true if they see them as equal beings. In order for animals to universally be seen as peers with humans our society’s values would have to come to a mutual agreement on whether or not humans are equal with or superior to others in the animal kingdom.
Kayla Lowe
Prof. Miller
ENG110-H2
19 November 2018
Things to Consider
As humans we ask each other things all the time. We ask for favors, we ask for Items, we ask for affection and so on. The question we must ask ourselves and what author David Foster Wallace explores, is if there is a limit to how much we can ask of our fellow human beings. Wallace claims “there are limits to what even interested persons can ask of each other”. In his word these “interested persons” can be referred to as people with thoughtful insight on the favor or change being asked of them. Wallace is saying even if someone is asked to do something, that is fully researched and considered from all different perspectives, it doesn’t guarantee someone will do what is asked of them. The logical solutions don’t always line up with people’s emotional obligations.
Man has the unique ability of choice when compared to other organisms. We can choose to be considerate towards others and the world surrounding us or we can choose not to. The choice is ours. In Wallace’s essay Consider the Lobster he looks at human’s choice when cooking said lobster. Fellow writers Caitlin Doughty and Hal Herzog also analyze the role human choice and consideration. Doughty responds to the topic of death and cremation in a radio interview while Herzog looks at human behavior surrounding animals in his article Animals Like Us. In relation to human choice and consideration discussed by these authors there is a consensus. A person ability to consider is shaped by their culture and upbringing. If an idea or action contradicts what a person had been brought up believing, then the chance are that person won’t end up considering it. The exception is if a person actively chooses to omit their previous beliefs in place of ones that better fit their own moral obligations to themselves.
As much as people love animals, majority of humans don’t see their lives as equality valuable as their own. Herzog’s article Animals Like Us features a collection of stories that contain conflicting human- animal relationships. One example is about a manatee named Snooty and his relationship with his caregiver Carolyn. The two are practically inseparable. Their bond is so deep in fact, the sea cow will refuse to eat without the presences of his beloved caretaker. Their relationship became more complex when Carolyn’s “husband accused her of having her priorities screwed up, of loving a half-ton blob of blubber and muscle more than she loved him” (Herzog pg. 3). Here is an example of an animal’s life being seen as less than a human’s. Snooty is clearly capable of showing love and affection to Carolyn and is thankful for her kindness, but his emotions, however human they may appear, do not make him equal to her spouses. This story amplifies Herzog’s later discussion about the “troubled middle”. Even though we say one thing our actions contradict it. Even though people say they value animals, when it comes down to a human’s life and a manatee’s, the human is the first choice. That is what it comes down to. We choose to value our lives over animals. We choose to make ourselves the superior being.
David Foster Wallace also examines human choice when it comes to our consumption of animals. Is it necessary to eat animals? Agriculture is one of the booming businesses of our time, specifically the raising and slaughtering of animals. Most take part in the consumption of animals but some do not. Those who don’t eat meat feel morally conflicted or their religions outline the unholiness of feasting on other living beings. If some groups of people, see an obvious problem in the way the world treats and consumes animals why don’t all human see it? Wallace outlines his reasons for still eating meat, saying “I have acknowledges that (a) I have an obvious selfish interest in this belief, since I like to eat certain animals and want to be able to keep doing it, and (b) I haven’t succeeded in working out any sort of personal ethical system in which the belief is truly defensible” (Wallace pg.4-5). His inner turmoil applies to many people who dare to consider the effects their behaviors are having on other living creatures. In his reasoning there is a clear distinction between eating for pleasure and eating for survival. While in the past meat may have been our only option, now there are many feasible alternatives. That being said our current consumption is very much self-driven. Wallace’s conflict can be directly tied back to human consideration. Majority choose to ignore the wants and needs of animals for their own benefit and consider our wellbeing before animals.
The reason we place our self above animals is rooted in our cultures and their value systems. Depending on which region in the world you reside your relationship with animals differs. Herzog uses dogs as an example. In western culture dogs are seen as a pet or companion. There are made to be a part of the family however in countries like Korea “a puppy can be a pet or an item on the menu” (Herzog). In contrast most Americans see a cow and think of a delicious meal, while in India cows are sacred creatures and would never be used for food. In each of these areas of the world their perspectives on animal lives overlap or conflict with the opposing cultures. None of the cultures have cruel intentions they just live as they always have. A person’s perception of animal lives is strongly influenced by their upbringing. If the people who raised you, consider animals as lower than them then you are most likely going to think similarly, and the opposite is true if they see them as equal beings. In order for animals to universally be seen as peers with humans our society’s values would have to come to a mutual agreement on whether or not humans are equal with or superior to others in the animal kingdom. Are we going to consider another being equal to us? Because humans are unable to communicate with animals in a universal language the likelihood of us becoming equals is slim. Until we find a way to fully understand animal thoughts and feeling it’s not going to happen.
If people chose to consider some of the harder topics in life they would be happier. Death is a particularly hard subject to discuss and many people choose to avoid it out of fear or sadness. Caitlin Doughty wants all of us to confront death and be more open to talking about it. In an interview on National Public Radio she talks about cremation. Doughty explains what a witness cremation is and how families will come in and send their loved ones off one last time. She says “it was an incredibly powerful experience because they took responsibility for that body. And they took responsibility for that death and for that loss to the community” (Doughty). When a family goes in and assists in a cremation it’s their time to do right by the person who died. No matter what type of relationship they had with the person when they were living they are still able to do one last good thing for them after they have died. A lot of people are squeamish around death, myself included, but why? It’s a known fact were all going to die, so why do we get the chills when we hear someone mention the D word? Our perception of death is built by our society. Because someone thought death was scary and taboo to discuss the majority of American culture steers clear of the topic. We all choose to brush off death and focus on other aspects of life but those who consider it end up happier. Doughty talks about people who choose to keep a dead body day after its passed and plan their own funerals. It sounds like an odd thing to do but when you think about it makes sense. Because they get extra time with the body it allows people to properly grieve and pay their respects. They feel more a part of that person’s life because their assisting with their final moments. Doughty says she’s never met someone who regretted keeping a loved one’s body after their passing. If more of us considered death in a more positive and natural way the topic would no longer be taboo in our culture.
One of the best and worst parts of being human is our ability to choose. we choose how we live, we choose what to eat, and we choose what happens to our bodies when we die. Human also choose to consider each of these things differently. David Foster Wallace, Hal Herzog, and Caitlin Doughty all analyze how human consideration impacts them and the things around them. All of their articles and interview come to one consensus, Human consideration is the key to every action we make, and it takes a plethora of catalysts to make a human change his or her mind especially if society or their upbringing conflicts with new trains of thought.
Works Cited
Doughty, Caitlin. “A Mortician Talks Openly About Death, And Wants You To, Too.” NPR, NPR, 8 Oct. 2014, www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=352765943.
Herzog, Hal. “Animals Like Us – Features – Utne Reader.” Utne, Ogden Publications, Inc., 2011, www.utne.com/environment/animals-like-us-human-pet-relationships.
Wallace, David Foster. “Consider the Lobster.” Consider the Lobster: 2000s Archive : Gourmet.com, Gourmet Magazine, Aug. 2004, www.gourmet.com.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/magazine/2000s/2004/08/consider_the_lobster165f.html?currentPage=2.
Recent Comments