By standards of virtue, is eating lobsters morally right or morally wrong? And if yes, do lobsters feel pain? Do we end their lives in an ethical or unethical manner? What is the religious and cultural point of view on lobster consumption? Does killing them violate their right to survival? What effects does lobster harvesting have on the ecosystem? These questions and conclusion will be based on five ethical perspectives: Utilitarianism ethics weigh if lobster suffering outweighs happiness or well-being; cultural and religious ethics consider the views and taboos of some communities; animal rights ethics consider the rights for the survival of animals; environmental ethics-We consider the sustainability and the impact of lobster harvesting on the environment and personal ethics consider personal views on moral lobster consumption. Humans have morality and are at the food chain’s peak and regard eating lobsters as a moral right. Human beings should know and be aware that they are equal to nonhuman animals and treat them respectfully.
According to Aristotle, the virtue of ethics has three broad directions: Care ethics, agent-based ethics, and Eudemonism. Care ethics is centered on individuals’ fairness and self-determination, as addressed by female feminist thinkers. In the agent-based theory, nativeness intuitions determine virtues that viewers observe to be appealing to other people, while Eudemonism relates virtues to human survival. Growth is equalized to doing our functions well; in other words, our life is characterized by how we reason well.
In the case of lobster consumption, killing and eating them is non-arguable to many people. We must consider and be aware that there is a link between humans and nonhuman animals in interdependent ecosystems because when subjected to injury, both suffer and feel induced pain. It is the role of humans to acknowledge the status and intelligence of nonhuman animals like lobsters, whether similar or different from that of human beings. Lobsters incur pain, though not in a similar way to human beings. According to research, lobsters indicated that they can identify and recall painful and scary objects and try to shy away from them. They can also understand and memorize places. For example, when put together, they can form social hierarchies. Lobsters have hemolymph that carries blood cells, hormones, waste products, nutrients, gases, oxygen, and molecules that act as a defensive mechanism.
If an animal is not capable of feeling pain or suffering in any way that results from tissue damage, then killing them to eat meat should not be considered with moral backlash. To prove that lobsters do feel pain, they can be subjected to aversive stimuli, and the outcome is an adverse reaction, showing lobsters certainly feel pain. There is a distinct difference between the nervous system of lobsters and that of humans. Humans have a central brain, but lobsters have a small nervous system.
Any slight damage or injury to lobsters does not influence their observation and behavior. Instead, they usually behave normally, indicating that lobsters have minimal proof of suffering and pain and can be generalized to all invertebrates except mollusks, which have complex nervous systems (McGowan, 2020).
Despite the morality of lobster consumption, scientists forbid boiling as a cooking method, and this is one of the most famous methods of cooking lobsters. When subjected to boiling water, they struggle for at most two minutes with the emission of noisy escaping air that may be interpreted as a trial to evade shocks through the production of reflex responses by the nervous system. The struggle of lobsters, when subjected to high temperatures, indicates discomfort, hopelessness, and other emotional states. Before cooking, a lobster’s nervous system should be destroyed with a complex cut on the underside, preferably through electrical stunning.
Lobster harvesting has caused tremendous impacts on other marine animals, such as whales. Harvesting lobsters endangers aquatic life and the environment in general. This results in unsustainability Michelle(2022). Harvesting of lobsters triggers a high risk of harming other marine animals, for example, whales, like in the case of the North Atlantic. According to the National Ocean Atmospheric Administration, nearly 30 whales were reported to die yearly between the year 2015 and 2019.
Furthermore, those who died as a result of gear entanglement during lobster harvesting were between 7% and 11%. Population across the world is increasing exponentially. Population increase has resulted in high demand for lobster harvesting, and if harvesting continues, lobsters will automatically go into extinction—overharvesting results in an imbalanced ecosystem of marine life. Humans also harvest indiscriminately both immature and egg-laying lobsters, thus reducing the growth rate of lobsters.
Some religions have done away with animal torture. The Bible, too, forbids lobster consumption. The book of Leviticus says, “And all that have no fins and scales in the seas and in the waters and of any living thing which is in the waters there shall be abomination unto you.” Lobsters do not possess fins; therefore, they are forbidden foods in the Bible. Jews regard lobsters and all seafood as unfit for human consumption and view them as unclean. Hindu and Buddhist religions have banned animal sacrifice because it is considered as life destruction. They argue that both human and nonhuman animals deserve uniform treatment. Islam accounts for nonhuman life. They say nonhuman animals have souls, converse with God, and praise him uniquely.
Aquatic life is of significant concern. It is the role of human beings to ensure continuity. Human disturbance of marine life may result in the migration of such animals and may lead to extinction. Careful consideration should be given to the adverse effects of lobster harvesting on the existing environment. Apart from valuing the benefits that accrue to them, human beings should also consider the impact of harvesting on lobsters and the entire marine life. Human beings should be aware that overharvesting of lobsters may lead to depletion, and existence becomes a history of the past. Naturing the existence and survival of lobsters will also benefit the future generation. Lobsters need to be taken care of with great concern. There is interdependence among animals, and this is the law of nature.
In conclusion, based on my arguments, I regard eating lobsters as morally wrong because during lobster harvesting, other aquatic life becomes victims of circumstances and is injured, and eventually, some of them die. Other small aquatic life may get trapped in the methods used in lobster harvesting, leading to an imbalanced marine ecosystem. Different religions and cultures also forbid seafood consumption, including lobsters, based on their beliefs and doctrines. They are seen as dirty and not fit for human consumption. Continuous disturbance may result in lobster migration. Lobsters might migrate towards polar regions where there is minimal disturbance. Tropical-related diseases may attack them, and future generations will learn about lobsters’ existence in the world of fantasy.
In addition, lobsters have a right to survival and equality. Their equality is similar to that of human beings. They need to be given room for survival and to flourish rather than inducing them with pain and suffering through merciless killing. Immersing them in boiling water during the cooking process is torturing them. This inhuman way violates their right to survival. It is the role of humankind to ensure continued procreation.
Works Cited
Milburn, Josh. Food, Justice, and Animals: Feeding the World Respectfully. Oxford University Press, 2023.
McGowan, Michael. “Cast Your Nets to the Right Side: Faith, Virtue, and the Morality of Food Choices.” Christian Scholar’s Review 49.2 (2020): 127-145.https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/cast-your-nets-right-side-faith-virtue-morality/docview/2370427250/se-2
write