To go through Toulmin's process... I would say Wallace's overall claim of the essay is that it is immoral to boil lobsters alive. His reasons for believing this would be mainly the behavior lobsters display as they are being boiled (resistance, scratching the pot, "screaming", etc.). So I believe his warrant is to find a better, less painful way to prepare lobster so that they do not experience pain.
Wallace's essay is very clearly not solely focused on the 2003 MLF, but instead focuses on the moral issue of boiling lobsters alive. I definintely would have still published this article. I found it easy to read and relate to, with all of Wallace's colloquial sayings and terms. I also enjoyed his sarcasm surrounding the event itself, such as "you only have to pay $20 for a folding chair if you want to sit down." Wallace almost seems to deny the purpose he was asked to write this essay by focusing on this moral issue rather than just the activities of the 2003 MLF. He states very clearly that he kows he is straying from the article's topic, which is also another reason I enjoyed and would have published Wallace's essay.
I agree with what you're saying about the essay being a question of the morality of the lobster being cooked.
ReplyDelete