Re-Considering The Lobster

David Foster Wallace’s Consider the Lobster is widely praised for its insight and depth. It challenges readers to rethink something as everyday as eating lobster. The essay made me stop and think about two important ideas that I thought deserve more attention. First, the assumption that a lobster’s attempt to escape equates to the human concept of suffering and second, the larger reality of the food chain and circle of life.

Wallace describes how lobsters thrash when cooked in boiling water. He takes this as a sign of preference and then suggests that the indication of a preference is equivalent to the lobster’s suffering in the human context. Not a terrible idea off the bat but further critical assessment of the logic would show that a preference or reaction does not always equal pain as humans know it. For example, many people make a face when biting into a sour lemon. Their reaction shows they do not like the taste. But it does not mean they are suffering. It is a simple biological response, not conscious pain. Or in mathematical terms, if A implies B, this does not guarantee that B implies C.

The lobster’s movements might be similar. They could be automatic reflexes, but not necessarily evidence of conscious suffering. Our tendency to interpret these actions as pain may come from human empathy and discomfort at what we see. This matters because if preference does not prove suffering, the moral argument about lobster pain becomes weaker.

There is also a broader issue to consider that Wallace does not fully explore in his essay. Every species depends on others for survival. Predators eat prey. Humans eat both animals and plants. Even those who avoid eating animals still consume plants that must be killed to survive. Life depends on death and consumption. Focusing only on the lobster’s suffering ignores this larger reality. Every creature participates in a cycle where survival requires taking life.

Wallace’s essay highlights the discomfort of boiling lobsters alive. Yet it isolates the lobster from the natural ecosystem in which it exists. The ethical question the essay raises relies heavily on human feelings and cultural views rather than an objective understanding of pain and survival. Recognizing the circle of life helps us see that death and consumption are not exceptions but part of existence itself.

This is not to say Wallace’s essay is without value. It powerfully challenges us to think about our everyday choices. But it is important to remember that reacting to harm does not necessarily mean suffering. And if suffering occurs, it happens within a natural system where life depends on consumption. These points remind us that ethics should be balanced with a clear understanding of nature rather than being founded only in feelings.