First draft (300 words)
The world is full of a variety of animals; animals that live in the trees, in open plains, along the coastlines, in lakes, rivers, and sea, and numerous other places. Within this world and their own respective environments, animals must interact with each other in order to survive. Whether an animal kills and eats another for food, or whether both animals benefit from a mutualistic relationship. When it comes down to the wire, we are animals ourselves. We are part of this world and must interact with other animals in order to survive, just like the smallest of insects and the largest of whales. Our interactions with other animals are unavoidable.
Many examples of how humans interact with and the ethics of these interactions with animals are revealed in numerous works. In David Foster Wallace’s “Consider the Lobster” he presents the ideas of how humans kill and eat lobsters and how these action conflicts our morals. In “Animals Like Us”, a selection from Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat, Hal Herzog presents the ideas of human and their interactions with animals in regard to companionship as pets and professional manners through work. Finally, in “What the Crow Knows”, Ross Andersen present human’s beliefs on animals’ consciousness. All of these articles challenge the human notion of our interactions with animals, all which are at times more than it seems from the surface. With these interactions come decisions. Our decisions about how we interact with animals in controversial manners is unique to the individual’s perspective and how they justify their reasoning, yet typically comes down to the emotional connection.
We pursue our passions, and if you are lucky enough, you get to work a job doing what you love. In the selection from his book, Herzog describes a story about Carolyn, who works with as a primary caregiver for a manatee named Snooty.
Second Draft (500 words)
The world is full of a variety of animals; animals that live in the trees, in open plains, along the coastlines, in lakes, rivers, and sea, and numerous other places. Within this world and their own respective environments, animals must interact with each other in order to survive. Whether an animal kills and eats another for food, or whether both animals benefit from a mutualistic relationship. When it comes down to the wire, we are animals ourselves. We are part of this world and must interact with other animals in order to survive, just like the smallest of insects and the largest of whales. Our interactions with other animals are unavoidable.
Many examples of how humans interact with and the ethics of these interactions with animals are revealed in numerous works. In David Foster Wallace’s “Consider the Lobster” he presents the ideas of how humans kill and eat lobsters and how these actions conflict our morals. In “Animals Like Us”, a selection from Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat, Hal Herzog presents the ideas of humans and their interactions with animals in regard to companionship as pets and professional manners through work. Finally, in “What the Crow Knows”, Ross Andersen present human’s beliefs on animals’ consciousness. All of these articles challenge the human notion of our interactions with animals, all which are at times more than it seems from the surface . With these interactions come decisions. Our decisions about how we interact with animals in controversial manners is unique to the individual’s perspective and how they justify their reasoning.
We pursue our passions, and if you are lucky enough, you get to work a job doing what you love. In the selection from his book, Herzog describes a story about Carolyn, who works as a primary caregiver for a manatee named Snooty. After vacations with her husband and they would leave early to return to Snooty, he “accused her of having her priorities screwed up, of loving a half-ton blob of blubber and muscle more than she loved him”. Carolyn’s interactions with Snooty leave her responsible for him, therefore she had to make a difficult decision between her personal life and career. With this decision comes reasons that only Carolyn can attest to why she made this decision. One can only say what they would do if put in that situation. Personally, as someone who is passionate about marine mammals, I could see myself in Carolyn’s position. To reason my decision, I would return to Snooty also, as I would feel guilty. Knowing that this animal is completely dependent on me, I wouldn’t be able to even enjoy my vacation as I would worry about the animal. Yet, that’s my own decision that I would make in order to live my life. As her own person, Carolyn has to make her own decision to live her own life. Would Carolyn even enjoy her vacation if she knew Snooty was struggling back home, and would her husband be able to sense this, would if affect his vacation also? Our interactions with animals impact our subconscious to make difficult decisions, sometimes choosing our careers over our personal lives. I would consider the consequences of my career, but if I get to do what I am passionate about involved with my job does it really even matter? At that point I don’t think I would consider it a job rather than being lucky enough to get paid for doing what I love.
Paper 3 Draft 1 (1000 word draft)
The world is full of a variety of animals; animals that live in the trees, in open plains, along the coastlines, in lakes, rivers, the sea, and numerous other places. Within this world and their own respective environments, animals must interact with each other in order to survive. Whether an animal kills and eats another for food, or whether both animals benefit from a mutualistic relationship. When it comes down to the wire, we are animals ourselves. We are part of this world and must interact with other animals in order to survive, just like the smallest of insects and the largest of whales. Our interactions with other animals are unavoidable.
Many examples of how humans interact with, and the ethics of these interactions with animals are revealed in numerous works. In David Foster Wallace’s “Consider the Lobster” he presents the ideas of how humans kill and eat lobsters and how these actions conflict our morals. In “Animals Like Us”, a selection from Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat, Hal Herzog presents the ideas of humans and their interactions with animals in regard to companionship as pets and professional manners through work. Through an NPR interview, Caitlin Doughty who is a mortician talks about death and human traditions of funerals and cremations. Her ideas may might not relate directly to animals, but her ideas are still applicable. All of these articles challenge the human notion of our interactions with animals, especially regarding the concepts of animals that are not cut black and white but more so contradicting. With these interactions come decisions. Our decisions about how we interact with animals when practice may contradict our morals is unique to the individual’s perspective and how they justify their reasoning.
We pursue our passions, and if you are lucky enough, you get to work a job doing what you love. In the selection from his book, Herzog describes a story about Carolyn, who works as a primary caregiver for a manatee named Snooty. After giving up on vacations early in order to return to Snooty, Carolyn’s husband “accused her of having her priorities screwed up, of loving a half-ton blob of blubber and muscle more than she loved him” (3). Carolyn’s interactions with Snooty leave her responsible for him, therefore she had to make a difficult decision between her personal life and career. Others may reason and agree with the husband’s perspective; that Carolyn is picking and valuing an animal and her job over her husband and personal life. Personally, as someone who is passionate about marine mammals, I could see myself in Carolyn’s position. To reason my decision, I would return to Snooty as I would feel guilty. Knowing that this animal is completely dependent on me, I wouldn’t be able to even enjoy my vacation or devout my full attention to the other person as I would worry about the animal. Our interactions with animals impact our subconscious to make difficult decisions, sometimes choosing our careers over our personal lives. I would consider the consequences of my career, but if I get to do what I am passionate about involved with my job does it really even matter? When one is at the point of working a job they love, aspects of their job tend to get personal. It is here within this overlap of interests that leaves us to make difficult decisions that may make sense to some, but not always to others.
Settings and emotional attachments can impact our decisions about animals, such as the differences between the workplace and our homes. Herzog presents the work of Ron Neibor who worked with cats and then had to study their brain. While conducting his study on the cats, Neibor “became attached to the two dozen animals in his lab … [as] they had become pets.” However, when it came time to kill and analyze the cats’ brains, Neibor’s “personality changed. A naturally cheerful and warmhearted person, he became tense, withdrawn, shaky” (Herzog 5). Personally, I would not be able to interact affectionately with animals that I would have to sacrifice for my job. I would try my best to carry a professional manner through and try not to become emotionally attached to the subjects. Others may argue that if a you are sacrificing an animal for science then why not give them the best quality of life before they have to die. I do see this argument and I agree, yet for my own personal sanity to conduct the procedure I would try to treat them properly without becoming emotionally involved, in a sense to do the bare minimum to give them a quality of life. With this matter in hand brings up the question of what is the quality of life for animal subjects? I believe it would be to give our best effort to make them happy. In the cat case, since my effort would be partial, perhaps I would bring people in to be affectionate with the cats and give them a better quality of life than the bare minimum. Carrying actions for animals at home, such as affection, into the workplace complicates how we interact with animals.
David Foster Wallace also presents an example along the lines of settings and emotional attachments impacting decisions about animals. Wallace reveals the concept of cooking lobsters alive and how our values can be contradicted. Despite lobsters being cooked at different venues, such as a festival, Wallace claims that “the intimacy of the whole thing is maximized at home, which of course is where most lobster gets prepared and eaten” which he further claims that prepared means getting killed (506). Wallace’s claim reflects how emotional attachments to animals can be strengthened at home. Similar to the death of a lobster in an emotional sense, Caitlin Doughty touches upon the emotional impact of cremating bodies. She claims that “You get used to it, in a way. I don’t mean to get callous, but it becomes a reality of your workplace because… you can’t take in the full existential despair…working with the bodies…every time or you just wouldn’t be able to come to work every day.” Both of these perspectives I have linked together by relating them to my own personal experiences. Through high school I have worked a job at a tropical fish store, where one of my tasks includes disposing of the dead fish. I also have fish at home, but when they die its different. At work, when death has become normalized and I am not emotionally attached to the animal, it is easy to brush off, in the sense that Doughty is trying to convey. Yet at home much like Wallace suggests, when the animal is mine, I care much more. As when Doughty talks about the despair, it would be too much to carry the sorrow of a dead animal day in and day out at work, yet at home, when it is infrequent, and I have more of an emotional connection, it carries more value and affects my well-being to a greater extent of analyzing what I did wrong caring for the animal. While comparing the prospects of disposing of dead fish being much less drastic than cremating human bodies, there are similarities among the emotional impact and how the professional setting of the workplace is restrictive of full emotional reactions.
Paper 3 Final Draft
The world is full of a variety of animals; animals that live in the trees, in open plains, along the coastlines, in lakes, rivers, the sea, and numerous other places. Within this world and their own respective environments, animals must interact with each other in order to survive. These interactions could include an animal killing another for food, or both animals benefitting from a mutualistic relationship. When it comes down to the wire, we are animals ourselves. We are part of this world and must interact with other animals in order to survive, just like the smallest of insects and the largest of whales. Our interactions with other animals are unavoidable.
Many examples of how humans interact with, and the ethics of these interactions with animals are revealed in numerous works. In David Foster Wallace’s “Consider the Lobster” he presents the ideas of how humans kill and eat lobsters, and how these actions conflict with our morals. In “Animals Like Us”, a selection from Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat, Hal Herzog presents the ideas of humans and their interactions with animals in regard to companionship as pets and professional manners through work. Through the NPR interview “A Mortician Talks Openly About Death, And Wants You To, Too”, the mortician Caitlin Doughty talks about death and human traditions of funerals and cremations. Her ideas may not relate directly to animals, but are still applicable. All of these articles challenge the human notion of our interactions with animals, especially regarding the concepts of animals that are not cut black and white but more so contradicting. With these interactions come decisions. Our decisions about how we interact with animals when practice may contradict our morals is unique to the individual’s perspective and how they justify their reasoning, which is why I believe we humans may have difficulty addressing these concerns.
We pursue our passions, and if you are lucky enough, you get to work a job doing what you love. In the selection from his book, Herzog describes a story about Carolyn, who works as a primary caregiver for a manatee named Snooty. After giving up on vacations early in order to return to Snooty, Carolyn’s husband “accused her of having her priorities screwed up, of loving a half-ton blob of blubber and muscle more than she loved him” (3). Carolyn’s interactions with Snooty leave her responsible for him, therefore she had to make a difficult decision between her personal life and career. Others may reason and agree with the husband’s perspective; that Carolyn is picking and valuing an animal and her job over her husband and personal life. Personally, as someone who is passionate about marine mammals, I could see myself in Carolyn’s position. To reason my decision, I would return to Snooty as I would feel guilty. Knowing that this animal is completely dependent on me, I wouldn’t be able to even enjoy my vacation or devout my full attention to the other person as I would worry about the animal. Our interactions with animals impact our subconscious to make difficult decisions, sometimes choosing our careers over our personal lives. I would consider the consequences of my career, but if I get to do what I am passionate about involved with my job does it really even matter? When one is at the point of working a job they love, aspects of their job tend to get personal. It is here within this overlap of interests that leaves us to make difficult decisions that may make sense to ourselves and some, but not always to others.
Settings and emotional attachments can impact our decisions about animals, such as the differences between the workplace and our homes. Herzog presents the work of Ron Neibor who worked with cats and then had to study their brains. While conducting his study on the cats, Neibor “became attached to the two dozen animals in his lab … [as] they had become pets.” However, when it came time to kill and analyze the cats’ brains, Neibor’s “personality changed. A naturally cheerful and warmhearted person, he became tense, withdrawn, shaky” (5). Personally, I would not be able to interact affectionately with animals that I would have to sacrifice for my job. I would try my best to carry a professional manner throughout and try not to become emotionally attached to the subjects. Others may argue not only the ethics of sacrificing an animal for science, but on top of that, if you are sacrificing an animal for science then why not give them the best quality of life before they have to die. I do see this argument and I agree, I believe an animal deserves the best quality of life before they are sacrificed. However, for my own personal sanity to conduct the procedure I would try to treat them properly without becoming emotionally involved. In this sense, I would do the bare minimum to give them a quality of life. With this matter in hand brings up the question of what is a quality life for animal subjects? I believe it would be to give our best effort to make them happy. In the example with the cats, since my effort would be partial, perhaps I would bring people in to be affectionate with the cats and give them a better quality of life other than the bare minimum professional manner I would treat them. Carrying actions for animals at home, such as affection, into the workplace complicates how we decide to interact with animals.
David Foster Wallace also presents an example along the lines of settings and emotional attachments impacting decisions about animals. Wallace reveals the concept of cooking lobsters alive and how our values can be contradicted. Despite lobsters being cooked at different venues, such as a festival, Wallace claims that “the intimacy of the whole thing is maximized at home, which of course is where most lobster gets prepared and eaten” which he further claims that prepared means getting killed (506). Wallace’s claim reflects how emotional attachments to animals can be strengthened at home. Similar to the death of a lobster in an emotional sense, Caitlin Doughty touches upon the emotional impact of cremating bodies. She claims that “You get used to it, in a way. I don’t mean to get callous, but it becomes a reality of your workplace because… you can’t take in the full existential despair…working with the bodies…every time or you just wouldn’t be able to come to work every day” (05:02-05:46). Both of these perspectives I have linked together by relating them to my own personal experiences. Through high school I have worked a job at a tropical fish store, where one of my tasks includes disposing of the dead fish. I also have fish at home, but when they die it’s different. At work, when death has become normalized and I am not emotionally attached to the animal, it is easy to brush off, in the sense that Doughty is trying to convey. Yet at home much like Wallace suggests, when the animal is mine, I care much more. As when Doughty talks about the despair, it would be too much to carry the sorrow of a dead animal day in and day out at work. However, at home, when the death of an animal is infrequent, and I have more of an emotional connection, it carries more value and affects my well-being to a greater extent of analyzing what I did wrong while caring for the animal. While comparing the prospects of disposing of dead fish being much less drastic than cremating human bodies, there are similarities among the emotional impact and how the professional setting of the workplace is restrictive of full emotional reactions.
The concept of actions contradicting our morals, can be a bit much to take in, truly consider, and address these concerns. I think this is part of the reason why it is so easy for us to turn the other cheek and ignore the issues, instead of facing the hard truth and come to a decision. All I know is that for me, I make decisions that make the most sense to me and allow me to move forward in life. I guess that’s how it is with all tough decisions in life. At least for me, I make the difficult decisions, perhaps with the guidance and wisdom of my loved ones and others around me, but ultimately, I make those decisions on my own. For the decision is mine to live with for the rest of my life, not somebody else’s. That’s as simple as I can understand a world full of complex decisions.
