Consider The Lobster

In the years since “Consider the Lobster” was first published, climate change has only worsened in severity and scope. Consuming animals influences climate change by causing an increase in methane gas, deforestation, and drought, among other issues, while the food chain itself is threatened by climate change. How and why do those issues impact your food decisions? And does climate change matter more or less than the ethical issues Wallace raises?

Gourmet is no longer published, so any reader of “Consider the Lobster” today is not a reader of Gourmet, Wallace’s intended audience. Does that impact how you read the essay? Does the essay change meanings with the change in venue or audience?

Wallace seems to argue that there are some moral issues that cannot be clarified in absolutist terms. What is one other moral issue that is too complicated for such absolutes? And are there some moral issues that can be defined absolutely?

Wallace is known for using footnotes in most of his writing. How do the footnotes in “Consider the Lobster” impact his overall argument? How do they impact your reading of the essay?

What moral lines exist for meat consumption for you? Why do those lines exist?

Wallace writes of not wanting to come across as “shrill or preachy” (253). Does he accomplish that goal? How does his tone impact the way you engage with the text?

Much of “Consider the Lobster” is concerned with finding the exact difference between pain and the perception or feeling of pain. What is the distinction? And does it matter?

What role does social class play in “Consider the Lobster”? Consider the taxicab driver, the consultant “demilocal,” and the rental car liaison that Wallace quotes. Consider also the typical reader of the piece (Gourmet readers). How does class impact each person’s ethics? Does that matter? Why or why not?