Analysis Of David Foster Wallace's 'Consider The Lobster'

In “Consider the Lobster,” David Foster Wallace asks his readers to consider if eating lobsters or other animals is ethical. He describes how lobsters show a preference to not be boiled by their efforts to avoid or escape the pan. He argues that this preference is proof that the lobster suffers or feels pain. However, I can compose the same argument about plants. Grasses produce a chemical in distress right before they are cut from a lawnmower or attacked by insects. This shows that the grass has a preference to not be cut or eaten just as the lobster did. As humans, we must eat either plants or animals to survive. If both plants and animals feel pain and show a preference to live, then how is eating one more ethical that eating the other? I believe that it is ethically permissible to kill animals and plants for food as long as a majority of the animal / plant is used for practical purposes, the animal / plant is not domesticated to a point of trust that a pet would have, and the
I believe he wrote the article so his readers would consider the ethics of what they eat. That is how the article impacted me . However, I have a problem with the article due to a bulk of the arguments against eating meat also applying to plants. As humans, we're required to eat at least one of them. However, ethics do play a role, in that morals is one of the elements that separates us from other animals. I believe that if you kill an animal or plant for food, you should put a majority of it to use in some way. I also believe animals and plants that are grown as a source of food should have as little interaction with humans as possible. Animals and plants should not be eaten if by eating them, we are endangering their existence. As long as animal or plant does not fall into one of these exceptions, then I believe it is ethically permissible to eat