Looking back at my first journal, I understand that David Foster Wallace was trying to raise a question beyond the morality of killing lobsters. (At least, I think so anyway.) When I first read this essay, I thought he was a bit crazy. Lobsters are delicious, why should we care about what they want? After all, their nervous systems are too simple to comprehend the situation of being boiled. I never had once thought cooking lobsters wasn’t morally acceptable, since it happened pretty commonly where I grew up.
Reading this again made me think about the morality of our culture, especially when it comes down to food. DFW highlights the hypocrisy of how we think. For example, the majority of our country is against animal cruelty, yet we are okay with throwing lobsters into a point of boiling water alive (which seems rather cruel). I think his point was that we should think about this since most of us don’t, including those who attended events such as the Maine lobster festival. We avoid thinking about ourselves in a negative light, that’s how humans are. Ultimately, I see this essay more as conveying an overall idea rather than someone advocating for lobster rights, which is different from how I viewed this essay the first time I read it.