Rhetorical Analysis Of Consider The Lobster

Human Desire vs. Moral Judgement

David Foster Wallace provides a controversial argument in his article, “Consider the Lobster,” by forcing his readers to not only think about how good their dinner may taste, but also how it got on their plate. He challenges the ethical standard which Americans use to reason with the idea that it is completely humane to put aside their morals when dealing with their taste buds, specifically when eating lobster. By using rhetorical devices ranging from the way he constructed his paper, to playing with different diction and focusing on emotional appeal throughout his essay, Wallace argues from both sides of the spectrum, (i.e., PETA member to Maine Lobster Fest fanatic), in order to assist his audience in considering

all of the facts before forming their own conclusion. Through witnessing Wallace’s moral journey, the readers can understand his conclusion that we are a selfish species, as we too often overlook the uncomfortable issues of morality for our desires.
One advantage to the way Wallace set up his essay is that he establishes a relationship with his audience.

His intended readers were originally the subscribers of Gourmet magazine, the probable suspects who have never thought twice about the value of the food that they consume, however, by connecting through very informal and amiable phraseology in the beginning of his work, making his work easy to read, he creates an atmosphere where any type of audience can relate to him. For instance, he describes the Maine Lobster Fest to readers that may have no idea what it was beforehand, and also goes into detail on how lobsters are killed and cooked to compare and contrast ways that already informed chefs would relate to. He invites readers to join him on his moral journey, without pressuring them into feeling a certain way, which is another one of the advantages that Wallace creates. He simply states the facts, both positive and negative, and encourages his audience to think about their own values on animal

life.
Readers are much more open minded after hearing arguments from both sides, which helps form much of Wallace’s credibility throughout the piece. He uses euphemism along with dysphemism to describe the Lobster Fest, so no matter what the readers felt about it, they had something to connect to. This also goes for arguing whether or not lobsters can feel pain. Wallace took an extensive amount of time to collect these facts, and it is what establishes his validity. He is also giving the reader a first hand look into his own emotions along with his personal anecdotes and experiences, specifically the Lobster Fest. The logic behind Maine’s famous Lobster Fest is what sparks the question of whether or not the treatment of these sea creatures is something worth fighting over, or just part of the social normality that should be accepted. Thanks to his shared experiences and multiple footnotes throughout, the informality of this paper lets the reader see a side of Wallace that would otherwise have been lost.
The most important and impressive rhetorical device that Wallace uses is his appeal to emotion.

The second half of this article centers all around the question of whether or not lobsters are treated with the dignity that they may or may not deserve. Humans everywhere associate bold feelings when faced with the word “pain,” and that is why this method is most effective in persuading a group of people to try to understand something that they have never, and will never, actually experience, (i.e., being boiled alive). He states that there are two main differences of pain; “... (1) pain as a purely neurological event, and (2) actual suffering.” Actual suffering has to do with the awareness of pain being an unpleasant feeling, and having a preference to not feel it, which involves having some sort of emotional component. In contrast, he brings in the fact that there is a very high chance that lobsters, in fact, do have preferences, as they can detect water change and choose to migrate a certain way. Thanks to Wallace’s strategies, readers may argue back and forth as to what they choose to

believe.
David Foster Wallace uses analogies that involve humans versus lobsters as another ethos attempt at binding his readers to the thought of being put through the same process that some of these creatures are forced to endure. One of them compares that “[a lobster] behaves very much as you or I would behave if we were plunged into boiling water.” If the audience connects with these facts, they are more likely to form an opinion, as it is hard to ignore a comparison that involves your own life. By influencing the audience to connect with their emotions but also work with their logical side, Wallace produces many different views from his readers.
Another advantage Wallace establishes is his ability to build up his diction from pleasant to gruesome, without sounding distasteful. He intensifies his ability to be more straight-forward with his audience as the article moves forward, more specifically when talking about how some lobsters are killed. He spares no feelings and lets the work of emotional appeal support his case, while still holding down a very logical base. For example, “some cooks practice is to drive a sharp heavy knife point-first into a spot just above the midpoint between the lobster’s eyestalks (more or less where the Third Eye is in human foreheads).” Notice that Wallace continues the relationship between human and lobster, maintaining the audience's inability to avoid thinking about this process being done to their own head.
Although these comparisons may lead the reader believe that Wallace thinks humans and animals are on an equal level, he does state that he knows animals are less important, “meaning a lot less important… since the moral comparison here is not the value of one human’s life vs. the value of one animal’s life, but rather the value of one animal’s life vs. the value of one human’s taste for a particular kind of protein.” Wallace simply uses these devices to spark an interest in the mind of the audience, and succeeds tremendously in doing so.