Deceptive Japanese Whaling Season Begins

[Mech_Engineer]

Then you should start with why was the law enacted?

The law (treaty) was originally enacted due to a combination of a few species being threatened and political pressure from environmentalist propaganda. Problem is, many species have now recovered, yet the treaty remains...

Sea Shepherd should be calling for reform of the treaty to allow sustainable hunting practices where appropriate, not violently opposing all whaling.

 

[nismaratwork]

So how does this give you or me or anyone the right to tell the Japanese how to live, especially in light of the fact that their hunting practices are not threatening the whale populations they hunt?

Japan exists today at the grace of the USA's military, rebuilding, and compassion after their role in WWII. If you want to get reductionist, I'd say we have the right because we beat it, then bought it. Get it?

So if it isn't needed for absolute essentials, we shouldn't do it? That can be applied to a LOT of other stuff in our everyday lives. Should deer and elk hunting be banned because we aren't in desperate need of their meat or antlers?

Sure, works for me, but I can't claim that there's any risk of ungulate intelligence. We don't need all of the people alive either... why not kill them and use them for food? Why show the same degree of care for a mouse as a man? In short, I'm not biting at your straw man bait.

I'm not sure you'd be an "idiot" to eat a chimp... anyway what does this have to do with whaling?

I'm not allowed to have an aside when dealing with the intractable? Oh, and you'd be a FOOL to eat chimp, unless you're playing odds on disease.

So, what exactly is your argument against whaling, rather than just eating meat in general? Whales are far more different than us than a chimp, so this seems to be an argument FOR hunting/farming them.

We don't need to do it, their intelligence is an open question, and I like whales. Your argument is at the level of personal reactions, so personal reactions you get. There's a treaty, and your interpretation of its intent is what's really irrelevant here. I could go on, but why? By your moral and intellectual standard, all I need to do is assert my apex predator status to protect what I like, as well as kill it. Maybe the trick is: Whalers get a fair chance to kill whales, and anti-whalers get to kill whalers on sight. Everyone's happy, and you've added some spice to the hunt... and why not, right?

Intelligence does not imply a moral or ethical reason why we should not hunt something, unless it is a sentient being IMO.

That's a nice opinion.

Honestly, your "arguments" are offensive and do nothing to add to this discussion. Are really going to try and say that there is no difference between whaling and eating babies?!

If that's what you took from my arguments, you can't read very well, and seeing how DaveC has struggled to reason with you on simple FACTUAL matters, why bother? You're preaching, not discussing, and anyway, who cares if you find my arguments offensive; you're arguing that intelligence isn't a factor, so yeah... eat babies.

 

[nismaratwork]

The law (treaty) was originally enacted due to a combination of a few species being threatened and political pressure from environmentalist propaganda. Problem is, many species have now recovered, yet the treaty remains...

Sea Shepherd should be calling for reform of the treaty to allow sustainable hunting practices where appropriate, not violently opposing all whaling.

Much as people talk about the intent of "the founding fathers", this is meaningless. A nation which owes its ongoing security to our military has no place violating an existing treaty.

If you feel so strongly, change the treaty, but until then it's breaking that treaty. Now, we have proof (and agree) that these species WERE threatened. We don't know if upon removal of this treaty, that these species might not be again and a new treaty would be tough to come by. From an empirical standpoint, I'd rather keep the treaty, not take the risk for NO REWARD, and go with the sure bet: this treaty saved species, and may still be doing so. Prove otherwise.

 

[nismaratwork]

I'm interested in defending the Japanese's right to hunt whales, because if we can stop them from hunting whales without scientific evidence or any real reason other than "that's the law," such "reasoning" can be applied to a lot of other daily activities that you or I take for granted...

Like what... hunting whales? Yeah, that's damned right. I'm yet to see the brief in a court of law that uses the illegal hunting of whales in Japan as a means to restrict freedoms of any other kind, anywhere else. Another straw man... do you live near a hay-bale or something?!

 

[Mech_Engineer]

...I like whales.

This is your argument in a nutshell. The rest is ad-hominem attacks, slippery slope, and straw-man arguments.

 

[nismaratwork]

This is your argument in a nutshell. The rest is ad-hominem attacks, slippery slope, and straw-man arguments.

So, acting as a mirror for your own style worked, and now through the Socratic method you've realized this is the composition of your own arguments?

or... You're as deeply entrenched as ever, plus I'm a dick?

 

[nismaratwork]

This is your argument in a nutshell. The rest is ad-hominem attacks, slippery slope, and straw-man arguments.

Alternate response:

yet the treaty remains...

It's the law.Alternate 2:

I like whales more than I like the Japanese's right to hunt them, especially given an evolving and uncertain view of cetacean intelligence.

Alternate 3: EVERYTHING that DaveC has said, and you've dismissed, dodged, ignored, and thrown fallacies around.

Alternate 4: I'm a whale in a person suit.

Alternate 5: You claim That I've committed straw man fallacies, ad hominem attacks, and that I've engaged in the slippery slope argument. Your argument is that if we uphold an existing treaty, we set a slippery slope in place for the abrogation of more rights. You relish the irony, right?

Alternate 6: You claim That I've committed straw man fallacies, ad hominem attacks, and that I've engaged in the slippery slope argument. In fact you claim that all but my own affection for whales is fallacious. Retract that or back it up.

edit: Alternate 7: Maybe I come from the ancient tradition, and believe the whales deserve their go'el haddam?

 

[dreiter]

(reply to posts #30 and #31, and in general) Mech Engineer, there's a reason that the cultures you describe tend to be nomadic, or collapse under change. Generally such communities eventually grow and hunt themselves out of an area. Even if you have 100 responsible generations, it just takes one to create an unsustainable pattern of hunting and farming.

As for the intelligence argument, I'd say that open questions about it and the complete LACK of any need to do this, makes it absurd. I can't claim to make a deep moral argument, but if we don't need whale products (oil, ambergris, bones, meat) for essentials this is just absurd.

Now, it isn't wrong for you to eat a chimp, but you'd be an idiot to do it wouldn't you? I mean, think of the pathology, much as the case with pigs. We get to eat pork, and in return for our kind stewardship, we've created a vast reservoir for viral mutation in a near-human analogue (not in terms of intelligence). Is it morally wrong to have huge hog farms that serve as breeding pits for influenza?... no, but it's dumb.

In the case of cetaceans, we don't know what their intelligence is, or isn't. Clearly some are far more capable and self aware than previously thought (mirror experiments), but let's take this to the logical Mech Eng extreme:

Can I eat retarded people? How about ones in a PVS? I'm fitter, and a hell of a lot brighter, and I'm hungry. I have to ignore the abundance of other food sources, the macabre nature of my act, and the reality that I've chosen to eat closer to the top of the brainiac pile than the bottom.

Can I eat babies? Certainly a dolphin or humpback is far more capable and intelligent than a human infant, right? Maybe a better straw man for you to construct would have been that, and not wild animals which are by definition FREE of morality, hunting. Humans know what we're doing and have option a lion or tiger doesn't. Unless you're prepared to defend a "might makes right/bright makes right" argument, I'd be thrilled.

Last question: Why can't I kill other people if this is such a non-issue? There are billions of people, and an obvious source of protein, and intelligence or empathy shouldn't be a factor. Peoplebasa at my place; bring a light pilsner.

Very good points!

My question is what right do other people have to prevent the Japanese from whaling, even without scientific evidence that their whaling practices are driving certain species of whales into extinction?

Like I said, I am not arguing about extinction, I am arguing about the human right to kill other creatures, in this case intelligent sea mammals, but the argument works for any animal really.

...Should deer and elk hunting be banned because we aren't in desperate need of their meat or antlers?

So, what exactly is your argument against whaling, rather than just eating meat in general? Whales are far more different than us than a chimp, so this seems to be an argument FOR hunting/farming them.

Intelligence does not imply a moral or ethical reason why we should not hunt something, unless it is a sentient being IMO.

Honestly, your "arguments" are offensive and do nothing to add to this discussion. Are really going to try and say that there is no difference between whaling and eating babies?!

I don't see why an advanced civilization needs deer and elk hunting either.

Just because something is different gives us the right to kill it wantonly?

If you are willing to eat something based on it's intelligence, then nismara's point holds. Where do you draw the line? Severely retarded people or people in a vegetative state can very well be of lower intelligence than a whale or chimp, so do you think it's fine to eat them?

By your moral and intellectual standard, all I need to do is assert my apex predator status to protect what I like, as well as kill it. Maybe the trick is: Whalers get a fair chance to kill whales, and anti-whalers get to kill whalers on sight. Everyone's happy, and you've added some spice to the hunt... and why not, right?

Good point.


Mech, I want to ask you, how do you determine that eating these animals is justified? Do you feel that God has given us animals to eat? Do you feel they are unimportant because they are less intelligent than you? Do you think it is a tradition, and therefore ok to practice? And for an inflationary last question, do you do it simply because you like the taste?

 

[DaveC426913]

Like I said, I am not arguing about extinction, I am arguing about the human right to kill other creatures, in this case intelligent sea mammals, but the argument works for any animal really.

There are no "rights", except those invented by mankind.

I don't see why an advanced civilization needs deer and elk hunting either.

Well, to eat.

True, we can make other choices. But those are choices. And that involves weighing priorities.

Just because something is different gives us the right to kill it wantonly?

No. Things that are not different we can kill wontonly too.

If you are willing to eat something based on it's intelligence, then nismara's point holds. Where do you draw the line? Severely retarded people or people in a vegetative state can very well be of lower intelligence than a whale or chimp, so do you think it's fine to eat them?

People do have rights.


Good point.

Mech, I want to ask you, how do you determine that eating these animals is justified? Do you feel that God has given us animals to eat?

It is justified because we must eat. The onus is on you to demonstrate why we should not eat certain things.

Do you feel they are unimportant because they are less intelligent than you?

What does "important" mean in this context?

Do you think it is a tradition, and therefore ok to practice? And for an inflationary last question, do you do it simply because you like the taste?

It is Ok to practice because we must eat. Demonstrate why we should not.

 

[nismaratwork]

There are no "rights", except those invented by mankind.



Well, to eat.

True, we can make other choices. But those are choices. And that involves weighing priorities.


No. Things that are not different we can kill wontonly too.


People do have rights.


Good point.


It is justified because we must eat. The onus is on you to demonstrate why we should not eat certain things.


What does "important" mean in this context?


It is Ok to practice because we must eat. Demonstrate why we should not.

Your bolds are fighting for dominance! I'm confused...

So, by your logic DaveC, would it be fair to say that we should eat what is easiest for us to kill, cook, and distribute? Right now, that's cattle, not Elk, Deer, or Whale... so I'd need to be sold on the change, as is the attempt has been made (successfully) with Deer, Elk, and Bison. You don't see me calling Ted Nugent a monster for killing deer and sending a ton (literally) of their jerky to our troops. I'd call him a monster for other reasons, but that's neither here nor there.

 

[nismaratwork]

So, in terms of viability and ease we can conclude that eating humans is a no-no because of prion and other disease/pathogens; We can conclude that for primates as well, and maybe even swine. There's your ethic for not eating babies and the elderly, or in the germane case of native Papua New Guinea tribes, a small amount of the revered dead. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_(disease)

So... even that is really just a matter of practicality at a basic and instinctual level. I think that's a good place to begin with 2 ideas: 1 Dave is right, and no one has the right to an intrinsic right, right? 2 You can construct a viable ethical lifestyle based on bottom-up practicality.

 

[Newai]

It's strictly for scientific research. The whalers are only killing the whales to find out what's killing them.

 

[nismaratwork]

It's strictly for scientific research. The whalers are only killing the whales to find out what's killing them.

That's the only time I've laughed in real life in this thread. Thanks!

 

[dreiter]

This multi-quoting is a big hassle! :D Also I would like to bring in some ideas of another person, Gary Francione, because I think he has answered some of your points more succinctly than I would be able to...

There are no "rights", except those invented by mankind.

You are saying that rights can only be applied to humans, but this is a fallacy. From Francione: "Just as the moral status of a human or animal is not determined by who caused the human or the animal to come into existence, the application of a moral concept is not determined by who devised it. If moral benefits went only to the devisers of moral concepts, then most of humnankind would still be outside the moral community. Rights concepts as we currently understand them were actually devised as a way of protecting the interests of wealthy white male landowners; indeed, most moral concepts were historically devised by privileged males to benefit other privileged males. As time went on, we recognized that the principle of equal consideration required that we treat similar cases in a similar way and we subsequently extended rights (and other moral benefits) to other humans. In particular, the principle of equal consideration required that we regard as morally odious the ownership of some humans by other humans. If we are going to apply the principle of equal consideration to animals, then we must extend to animals the right not to be treated as a resource.

It is irrelevant whether animals devised rights or can even understand the concept of rights. We do not require that humans be potential devisers of rights or understand the concept of rights in order to be beneficiaries of rights. For example, a severely retarded human being might not have the ability to understand what a right is, but that does not mean that we should not accord her the protection of at least the basic right not to be treated as a resource of others."

Well, to eat.

True, we can make other choices. But those are choices. And that involves weighing priorities.

I agree with you completely. What I am saying is that there is NO priority for an advanced society to eat meat besides the result to the taste buds, while there are many priorities against it, such as environmental degradation, negative health results, and inflicting unnecessary suffering.

No. Things that are not different we can kill wontonly too.

Like other people? I hope you aren't arguing for this!

It is Ok to practice because we must eat. Demonstrate why we should not.

I don't think we need to have a large discussion about how meat consumption is worse for the planet than eating plants, or how meat consumption has more deleterious effects on human health than plants, or how it is morally more preferable to kill a strawberry than kill a whale. These things are all quite obvious at this point, and I hate the idea of belaboring them further...

 

[drankin]

I don't think whale meat is commercially available in the US. If it is I want to try it out. In lieu of that I'm going to have a fat burger at Red Robin tonight. I have yet to be convinced that I should eat a soy burger instead.

Good luck convincing the human race that they should not eat meat. Even if it were possible, which it is not, it would have to be substituted on an enormous scale.

I think we should focus on why whales get beached and work more on preventing that.

 

[mugaliens]

Good luck convincing the human race that they should not eat meat. Even if it were possible, which it is not, it would have to be substituted on an enormous scale.

We're all subject to this. No one is exempt.

 

[DaveC426913]

You are saying that rights can only be applied to humans

No. I am not.

I am saying rights can only be applied by humans. And we simply assign them as we see fit.

What I am saying is that there is NO priority for an advanced society to eat meat besides the result to the taste buds

Agreed. We don't have to. And there are valid arguments for choosing not to. But there are no overarching reasons why your beliefs override the beliefs of someone who chooses to.

I don't think we need to have a large discussion about how meat consumption is worse for the planet than eating plants, or how meat consumption has more deleterious effects on human health than plants, or how it is morally more preferable to kill a strawberry than kill a whale. These things are all quite obvious at this point, and I hate the idea of belaboring them further...

OK, so don't. Everybody is entitled to make set own priorities. There is no overarching argument that we must minimize our "meat footprint".

Taken to the extreme, if we all did what was "best for the planet" we'd never get out of bed - or leave our caves, at it were.

 

[dreiter]

Agreed. We don't have to. And there are valid arguments for choosing not to. But there are no overarching reasons why your beliefs override the beliefs of someone who chooses to.


OK, so don't. Everybody is entitled to make set own priorities. There is no overarching argument that we must minimize our "meat footprint".

Taken to the extreme, if we all did what was "best for the planet" we'd never get out of bed - or leave our caves, at it were.

And taken to extremes, we would get up every day with the goal of totally screwing our world over. You can't just ignore problems because you don't want to pay attention. If we did that then it would be the extreme. You say that the decision to eat meat is a matter of opinion, and that's true, but that doesn't make it a non-argument. Again, from Francione:
"Animal rights are no more a matter of opinion than is any other moral matter. This question is logically and morally indistinguishable from asking whether the morality of human slavery is a matter of opinion. We have decided that slavery is morally reprehensible not as a matter of mere opinion, but because slavery treats humans exclusively as the resources of others and degrades humans to the status of things, thus depriving them of moral significance.

On another level, this question relates to...the position that all morality is relative, a matter of convention or convenience or tradition, with no valid claim to objective truth. If this were the case, then the morality of genocide or human slavery or child molestation would be no more than matters of opinion. Although it is certainly true that moral propositions cannot be proved in the way that mathematical propositions can, this does not mean that “anything goes.” Some moral views are supported by better reasons than others, and some moral views have a better “fit” with other views that we hold. The view that we can treat animals as things simply because we are human and they are not is speciesism pure and simple. The view that we ought not to treat animals as things is consistent with our general notion that animals have morally significant interests."

 

[ThomasT]

The following is related to the OP wherein it was stated that "their [the Japanese whalers] activities are utterly reprehensible and disgusting", and since the OP continued with "and their attempt at deception is an affront to thinking people throughout the globe", then I'm assuming that the former quote is directed at the activity of whaling, per se, and not at any perceived or conjectured deception wrt that activity.

My points are against the concept of hunting in general, specifically the ethical and environmental issues of hunting.

While I find no particular fascination with, or need to, hunt and kill animals, I know some people, and they're close friends, who do hunt and kill animals. Without pretending to be able to explain what compels them to do this, I nonetheless think that I can understand why they do it. I honestly don't think that there's any moral issue involved unless the hunters are intending to inflict unnecessary pain on the hunted, and wrt the hunters that I personally know I don't believe that that's the case.

Regarding environmental issues, appropriately restricted hunting seems to me to be a good thing, not a bad thing. But, I'm amenable to being convinced otherwise.

... we are having two separate arguments. One is about the feasibility of 'sustainable hunting' and the other is about the ethics of hunting at all.

I don't know that there's any good argument against the idea that sustainable hunting is feasible or beneficial to the stability, and therefore the sustainability, of certain herd animals.

There are more or less isolated populations of humans that rely on hunting. We could, of course, prohibit their hunting activities and require them to subsist on 'farmed' animals. But, of course, that has its own associated moral considerations. Mankind has been hunting and eating other animals, opportunistically and systematically, for as long as we know.

So, I don't really see any ethical argument, in any absolute sense, against hunting. However, as previously noted, I'm amenable to further education and enlightenment on the subject.

If we are going to apply the principle of equal consideration to animals, then we must extend to animals the right not to be treated as a resource.

Well, we do seem to be increasingly applying the principle of equal consideration to animals, that is, broadening the scope of egalitarianism. This is evident wrt changing attitudes wrt the treatment of lab animals, and, in particular, whether certain animals, such as chimps, should be used as lab animals at all.

However, we also 'farm' certain animals for consumption. Most notably, chickens and cows. Now, I like chicken soup and stew, and I absolutely love beef stew, but I also don't want these animals to have to endure any sort of unnecessary pain. Nonetheless, it doesn't seem practicable to me that we might be able to sustain the dietary demand for these animals without, in some sense, 'farming' them.

And now you can make an argument for vegetarianism. And I'll listen because I'm pretty sure that at least one of my friends is a committed vegetarian. There are others who say they are, but I'm not so sure they're telling the whole truth.

What I am saying is that there is NO priority for an advanced society to eat meat besides the result to the taste buds ...

I'm not so sure that this is the case. Convince me that I can live as healthily on a diet of, say, rice and soybeans, as I can on a diet of, say, rice and chicken or cow meat.

Anyway, imho, there are more meat eaters and hunters than you can possibly convince to not be meat eaters and hunters. And, again imho, this (presumed) fact doesn't necessarily threaten the, more or less thriving, existence of ANY species.

Bottom line, yes, I think that restrictions on Japanese and other whaling is a good thing. But, I also think that whaling, or the hunting of any particular animal, should not be outlawed. Just reasonably restricted.

As far as the stuff about eating retarded people or whatever, well, that's just silly. I mean, really, in my worst projections, and I AM a cynic regarding the evolution of mankind, that sort of thing isn't ever going to become a consideration. It's much more likely that mankind will become essentially vegetarian.

 

[dreiter]

Thomas, would you argue that animals (including humans) perceive death to be worse than pain? Because hunting is more than inflicting unnecessary pain, it is inflicting unnecessary death. There is no need to make tribes eat farm animals as you suggest. There is no need for the eating of animals at all! You have mentioned that you are uncertain if a healthy life is possible using soybeans instead of meat, and I can tell you on no uncertain terms that not only is it possible, it is healthier. Looking at any nutritional breakdown of meat products versus soy products, you can easily see the superior nutritional profile of the soy alternative. Meat has protein and some vitamins and minerals, but tofu has both of those as well as fiber and phytochemicals. So I don't think arguing the health issues is the way to go ;) As for the 'you can never convince everyone to stop eating meat so why bother', well that might as easily be 'you can never convince others to vote like you do so why bother'. If you think voting is futile, then I suppose I can see why you think changing your diet is futile.

 

[ThomasT]

Thomas, would you argue that animals (including humans) perceive death to be worse than pain?

No.

Because hunting is more than inflicting unnecessary pain, it is inflicting unnecessary death.

I presume that there are things worse than death, such as prolonged excruciating pain (I imagine, but don't really know).

There is no need to make tribes eat farm animals as you suggest.

I agree, they should be allowed to hunt the wild animals in their territories as they always have. Eating 'farmed' animals is simply the norm in my world.

There is no need for the eating of animals at all!

For some societies there seems to be.

You have mentioned that you are uncertain if a healthy life is possible using soybeans instead of meat, and I can tell you on no uncertain terms that not only is it possible, it is healthier.

Ok, for now, I'll take your word for it.

Looking at any nutritional breakdown of meat products versus soy products, you can easily see the superior nutritional profile of the soy alternative. Meat has protein and some vitamins and minerals, but tofu has both of those as well as fiber and phytochemicals.

Ah yes, fiber. I'm 62. I take fiber supplements. It seems to help.

So I don't think arguing the health issues is the way to go ;)

Well, I'm not really arguing health issues. But I do remember a study that said that societies that subsisted primarily on meat and milk (ie. the farming of animals) seemed to be healthier than primarily vegetarian societies. Of course, there might be many factors in play here. So, I never regarded this as definitive.

As for the 'you can never convince everyone to stop eating meat so why bother', well that might as easily be 'you can never convince others to vote like you do so why bother'.

I don't think I said that. Did I say that?

If you think voting is futile, then I suppose I can see why you think changing your diet is futile.

I don't think voting is futile. I think it's idiotic, that is, voting republican or democrat, if you want to ever see any real change from the status quo. If you don't then of course by all means continue to vote democrat or republican. And, I don't see becoming a vegetarian as necessary in any sort of moral sense, or necessarily beneficial dietarily. I like eating chicken and cow meat. I'm 62 years old and healthy as a horse and have been eating, primarily, chicken and cow meat for my entire life. I eat a vegetable and/or a fruit maybe once a month.

 

[DaveC426913]

And taken to extremes, we would get up every day with the goal of totally screwing our world over.

Why would we do that?

Where did I even hint that we would wish to screw up our world, (which would subsequently screw us up)?


All I'm doing is pointing out that, when we choose to limit ourselves, and protect our world we do it for our own benefit, not for the benefit of some morality outside the influence of humans.

The key is that we decide what is the right thing to do.

In that sense, animals do not have rights, they have privileges - privileges can be taken away if we see fit.

"Animal rights are no more a matter of opinion than is any other moral matter. This question is logically and morally indistinguishable from asking whether the morality of human slavery is a matter of opinion. We have decided that slavery is morally reprehensible not as a matter of mere opinion, but because slavery treats humans exclusively as the resources of others and degrades humans to the status of things, thus depriving them of moral significance.

Correct. We (the majority) have decided that all humans have rights. This was not the case when the world was much much more of a frontier and foreigners were enemies or animals.

The view that we ought not to treat animals as things is consistent with our general notion that animals have morally significant interests."

Yes. It's an argument. It is not a given.

The problem with this whole whaling thread is that many people assume that these "animal rights" are a given.

.
.

 

[nismaratwork]

Why would we do that?

Where did I even hint that we would wish to screw up our world, (which would subsequently screw us up)?


All I'm doing is pointing out that, when we choose to limit ourselves, and protect our world we do it for our own benefit, not for the benefit of some morality outside the influence of humans.

The key is that we decide what is the right thing to do.

In that sense, animals do not have rights, they have privileges - privileges can be taken away if we see fit.



Correct. We (the majority) have decided that all humans have rights. This was not the case when the world was much much more of a frontier and foreigners were enemies or animals.



Yes. It's an argument. It is not a given.

The problem with this whole whaling thread is that many people assume that these "animal rights" are a given.

.
.

Well, I've been clear that I don't even believe in an objective reality of human rights, except for mutual consent, as you've said. I said flat out to the guy I was arguing with, "I like whales", as one of the justifications. I'm happy to have a reasonable discussion, and I know that you're trying to go nap-of-the-earth with the scientific view here; I accept that.

We humans organize from basic principles of mutually extended privilages based on the ability to end or ruin each others lives. That ruining can be seizure of food or land, women and children, or even spreading disease. The killing, is obvious. We then try to explain WHY, beyond the obvious utility of a measure of social interaction, we should extend the same privileges in ANY form to ALL people. For most of history, and in much of the world, that's just not the case for people; they don't think they have rights, they KNOW that they don't.

NONE of that... has anything to do with this discussion anymore in my view. The lines have been drawn at: I Want vs. I Believe, and they're unlikely to move. Some people want whale meat, and I, being capable of doing so, express my disgust and anger with that choice, and my belief in a go'el haddam system for this new frontier. The flipside of packing heat in the wild west after all, and the freedoms conferred, was a lack of security... I think whalers can live and die under the same basic principles of retribution.

Remember, if this isn't a moral issue, why should I be morally troubled when whalers are killed, their livelihoods destroyed, etc? I'm thrilled, and in a world where you could kill them on sight as rangers do to poachers in some nations, I'd be in line with a gun. The whalers can pack heat too, and now you REALLY have 'The Most Dangerous Catch'.

History indicates that if diplomacy fails, violence will settle the issue eventually, if only through mutual destruction.

 

[dreiter]

For some societies there seems to be.

That's great for those societies, but Japan/US are not hunter-gatherer societies, so this does not apply to us.

Ok, for now, I'll take your word for it.

Don't take my word for it, just look around a few minutes. From Wiki:
"Vegetarian diets are usually rich in carbohydrates, omega-6 fatty acids, dietary fiber, carotenoids, folic acid, vitamin C, vitamin E, potassium and magnesium.[3][4] They contain lower levels of saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein.[3]
Studies show that the health of vegetarians compares favourably with that of non-vegetarians.[5] British vegetarians have lower death rates than non-vegetarians,[5][6] although this is at least partly due to non-dietary lifestyle factors, such as a low prevalence of smoking and the generally high socioeconomic status of vegetarians, or to aspects of the diet other than the avoidance of meat and fish.[7]
Vegetarians avoid the negative health effects of animal protein including red meat: A 1999 meta-study of five studies comparing vegetarian and non-vegetarian mortality rates in Western countries found the mortality rate due to ischemic heart disease 26% lower among vegans, compared to regular meat eaters, and 34% lower among ovo-lacto vegetarians and pescetarians...
There is evidence that vegetarians tend to have a lower body mass index,[3][4] lower risk of obesity,[17] lower blood cholesterol levels,[3][4] lower homocysteine levels,[4] lower risk of high blood pressure,[3][17] and lower risk of type 2 diabetes.[3][17] One large prospective study found that non-meat-eaters had only half the risk of meat eaters of requiring an emergency appendectomy.[5]"

I don't think I said that. Did I say that?

Yes, see below.

Anyway, imho, there are more meat eaters and hunters than you can possibly convince to not be meat eaters and hunters.

And, I don't see becoming a vegetarian as necessary in any sort of moral sense, or necessarily beneficial dietarily. I like eating chicken and cow meat. I'm 62 years old and healthy as a horse and have been eating, primarily, chicken and cow meat for my entire life. I eat a vegetable and/or a fruit maybe once a month.

That's great for you. The question is what your pleasure is worth to society and the environment. Even if you don't recognize the moral status of animals, do you recognize the environmental destruction that meat has to our planet?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_effects_of_meat_production"

All I'm doing is pointing out that, when we choose to limit ourselves, and protect our world we do it for our own benefit, not for the benefit of some morality outside the influence of humans.

The key is that we decide what is the right thing to do.

In that sense, animals do not have rights, they have privileges - privileges can be taken away if we see fit.

I agree with these statements, but I don't see how you are using them to explain your ignoring this issue.

Yes. It's an argument. It is not a given.

The problem with this whole whaling thread is that many people assume that these "animal rights" are a given.
.

My argument is that animal rights should be a given, just as black rights or women's rights are.

 

[DaveC426913]

My argument is that animal rights should be a given, just as black rights or women's rights are.

They can't be a given. Since rights are an entirely human invention, and animals cannot demand their own rights, the only way animals get rights is if we bestow them and enforce them on their behalf. i.e. the only contention that there will ever be over the rights of animals is that of humans who think they should have rights versus humans who think they shouldn't.

 

[nismaratwork]

Not to be rude, but I don't really give a **** who's vegetarian here. Talking about eating meat in GENERAL has only tangential ideological bearing on the issue of whaling for "culture". This is the same cultural stewardship that gives us shark-fin soup, and no more tigers...

The OP and title are pretty clear... whaling. If anyone wants to debate the health and wisdom of a vegetarian diet, please... do it in a thread about that. This is a serious issue that deserves more than the usual gadfly intellectual exercises found in this section of PF.

If you want to discuss the reality of rights, there's a lovely philosophy forum that a Jesuit could get lost in. These matters only apply here as a specific case, and one in which there is the VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL TREATY.

 

[Newai]

They can't be a given. Since rights are an entirely human invention, and animals cannot demand their own rights, the only way animals get rights is if we bestow them and enforce them on their behalf. i.e. the only contention that there will ever be over the rights of animals is that of humans who think they should have rights versus humans who think they shouldn't.

Okay, I have to ask how what I think is a fair exception can be excluded by that (just to help me understand your argument, please): there are a lot of people who are so disabled that they can not demand their rights. But aren't their rights a given regardless?

 

[nismaratwork]

Okay, I have to ask how what I think is a fair exception can be excluded by that (just to help me understand your argument, please): there are a lot of people who are so disabled that they can not demand their rights. But aren't their rights a given regardless?

Mutually Extended Privileges... MEP... I'm trademarking it . Rights are a concept based in an absolute moral authority in what (I believe) is an amoral universe. Privileges, we can exchange under the golden rule, and other concepts of equity, and build from there.

 

[mugaliens]

That's the only time I've laughed in real life in this thread. Thanks!

Humorous, yes, but also tragic, in it's Dean/Lewis sort of way.

 

[mugaliens]

They can't be a given. Since rights are an entirely human invention, and animals cannot demand their own rights, the only way animals get rights is if we bestow them and enforce them on their behalf. i.e. the only contention that there will ever be over the rights of animals is that of humans who think they should have rights versus humans who think they shouldn't.

Dave C, you bring up an interesting argument. What about the organisms which live upon both you and I to this very day?

Icky, yes, but something to think about, particularly as neither you nor I gave them any permission to live upon us at all.

 

[DaveC426913]

Okay, I have to ask how what I think is a fair exception can be excluded by that (just to help me understand your argument, please): there are a lot of people who are so disabled that they can not demand their rights. But aren't their rights a given regardless?

You mean simply because they can't speak?

No. Animals can't demand rights because they are not sapient. They live in the present, with no concept of freedom of pursuit of happiness.

Dave C, you bring up an interesting argument. What about the organisms which live upon both you and I to this very day?

Icky, yes, but something to think about, particularly as neither you nor I gave them any permission to live upon us at all.

I don't follow. What about them?

 

[ThomasT]

My argument is that animal rights should be a given, just as black rights or women's rights are.

Agreeing with the position of some other contributors to this thread, and disagreeing with you on this particular point (even though I acknowledge that your position is reasonable, and that your points wrt, say, vegetarianism, etc., despite nismaratwork's eloquent, and to the point, protestations, make much sense to me) I don't think that animal rights, or any other rights are "a given" in any sort of naturalistic, objective sense. Rights are given, or not, by those in power, by those in control.

Now, do I think that Japenese, or Norwegian, or whatever, whaling should be allowed to continue? Personally, I would rather that it stop. But, objectively, wrt the world at large, I can't find a good reason why it should. That is to say, even though it offends my sensibilities, I don't think it matters wrt encompassing considerations such as the survivability of other species, in particular mankind, or the oceans, or Earth. More species than we can count have come and gone in the history of the Earth.

As far as I can ascertain, worst case scenario, all of the whales and dolphins in the world can become extinct, and that wouldn't have much impact on the survivability of the human species. In fact, most of the species in our world can become extinct, and that wouldn't have much impact on the survivability of the human species. Do I want to live in such a world? No. Do I have any reasons for this orientation other than emotional ones? No.

I don't think in terms of normative ethics. Esthetically, for reasons that I can't verbalize, I would rather that we leave populations of wild animals to flourish, or not, on their own. However, it appears that certain portions of humankind are intent on preying on, with the possibly of extinguishing, certain animal species. And, I don't have any good, objective, argument against this, while very much not liking it.

Are the Japanese or Norwegian whaling practices reprehensible? Well, not according to them. And I have to agree, in a certain sense. Whale killing, or rhino killing, or gorilla killing, or whatever, isn't, in itself, reprehensible. Ok, yes, I, along with many others, want to live in a world where all of these species are present. However, my current opinion is that it doesn't matter wrt to the survivability of humankind. So, if the criterion is simply the survivabilty of humankind, then it seems to me that we can kill off most of the animal and plant species on Earth and still survive quite healthily. Or maybe not. I don't really know, so am amenable to being persuaded otherwise.

 

[nismaratwork]

Agreeing with the position of some other contributors to this thread, and disagreeing with you on this particular point (even though I acknowledge that your position is reasonable, and that your points wrt, say, vegetarianism, etc., despite nismaratwork's eloquent, and to the point, protestations, make much sense to me) I don't think that animal rights, or any other rights are "a given" in any sort of naturalistic, objective sense. Rights are given, or not, by those in power, by those in control.

Now, do I think that Japenese, or Norwegian, or whatever, whaling should be allowed to continue? Personally, I would rather that it stop. But, objectively, wrt the world at large, I can't find a good reason why it should. That is to say, even though it offends my sensibilities, I don't think it matters wrt encompassing considerations such as the survivability of other species, in particular mankind, or the oceans, or Earth. More species than we can count have come and gone in the history of the Earth.

As far as I can ascertain, worst case scenario, all of the whales and dolphins in the world can become extinct, and that wouldn't have much impact on the survivability of the human species. In fact, most of the species in our world can become extinct, and that wouldn't have much impact on the survivability of the human species. Do I want to live in such a world? No. Do I have any reasons for this orientation other than emotional ones? No.

I don't think in terms of normative ethics. Esthetically, for reasons that I can't verbalize, I would rather that we leave populations of wild animals to flourish, or not, on their own. However, it appears that certain portions of humankind are intent on preying on, with the possibly of extinguishing, certain animal species. And, I don't have any good, objective, argument against this, while very much not liking it.

Are the Japanese or Norwegian whaling practices reprehensible? Well, not according to them. And I have to agree, in a certain sense. Whale killing, or rhino killing, or gorilla killing, or whatever, isn't, in itself, reprehensible. Ok, yes, I, along with many others, want to live in a world where all of these species are present. However, my current opinion is that it doesn't matter wrt to the survivability of humankind. So, if the criterion is simply the survivabilty of humankind, then it seems to me that we can kill off most of the animal and plant species on Earth and still survive quite healthily. Or maybe not. I don't really know, so am amenable to being persuaded otherwise.

I would add... for me... if I had the willpower to not eat meat, I'd do that. I don't think it's better for my health... I just really feel badly about how many animals I've eaten. I'm not unrealistic about the internal world of cows however, but by the same token I'm given pause by the seeming intelligence of pigs (relatively intelligent...), cetaceans, and even some birds. Are these animals fooling us with elaborate behaviors, are they sapient, are either of those questions really valid when applied to a non-human intelligence, if it exists?

So... I understand why you appreciate dreiter's points, as well as mine... it's a horribly conflicted matter of balancing self-control, morals, and the possibility that what I just ate felt pain, suffered, and died... or just died. It's all my FEELINGS however, because there isn't a locus of data I can point to and say, "there, animal sapience!". I also can't ignore the fact that I wouldn't have eaten any of my dogs (given a choice), yet I eat pigs... which are brighter than dogs.

I think for those reasons this kind of issue requires exceedingly narrow focus relating to the issues of whaling in this context where it's:
Unnecessary
Illegal
In Violation of International Treaty (see: Illegal)
The Justification Is "cultural".

"Wenn ich Kultur höre ... entsichere ich meinen Browning!"

P.S. I agree that it's unlikely to stop, even though as you say, my sensibilities are offended. (The only element of this I can state with absolute certainty)

 

[dreiter]

They can't be a given. Since rights are an entirely human invention, and animals cannot demand their own rights, the only way animals get rights is if we bestow them and enforce them on their behalf. i.e. the only contention that there will ever be over the rights of animals is that of humans who think they should have rights versus humans who think they shouldn't.

Newai countered your thought, and I have already answered why animal rights still apply when instituted by humans.

Okay, I have to ask how what I think is a fair exception can be excluded by that (just to help me understand your argument, please): there are a lot of people who are so disabled that they can not demand their rights. But aren't their rights a given regardless?

Not to be rude, but I don't really give a **** who's vegetarian here. Talking about eating meat in GENERAL has only tangential ideological bearing on the issue of whaling for "culture". This is the same cultural stewardship that gives us shark-fin soup, and no more tigers...

The OP and title are pretty clear... whaling. If anyone wants to debate the health and wisdom of a vegetarian diet, please... do it in a thread about that. This is a serious issue that deserves more than the usual gadfly intellectual exercises found in this section of PF.

If you want to discuss the reality of rights, there's a lovely philosophy forum that a Jesuit could get lost in. These matters only apply here as a specific case, and one in which there is the VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL TREATY.

Fair enough, I will stop after this post. I promise! :)

No. Animals can't demand rights because they are not sapient. They live in the present, with no concept of freedom of pursuit of happiness.

This is wrong, as many recent animal studies have shown. The question is not if they can plan for the future, or if they can worry about the next mortgage, the question is 'can they suffer' and the answer to that is a resounding yes.

I would add... for me... if I had the willpower to not eat meat, I'd do that. I don't think it's better for my health... I just really feel badly about how many animals I've eaten. I'm not unrealistic about the internal world of cows however, but by the same token I'm given pause by the seeming intelligence of pigs (relatively intelligent...), cetaceans, and even some birds. Are these animals fooling us with elaborate behaviors, are they sapient, are either of those questions really valid when applied to a non-human intelligence, if it exists?

So... I understand why you appreciate dreiter's points, as well as mine... it's a horribly conflicted matter of balancing self-control, morals, and the possibility that what I just ate felt pain, suffered, and died... or just died. It's all my FEELINGS however, because there isn't a locus of data I can point to and say, "there, animal sapience!". I also can't ignore the fact that I wouldn't have eaten any of my dogs (given a choice), yet I eat pigs... which are brighter than dogs.

Well I am glad you are at least seeing the dichotomy! I hope this will lead you to search for an answer to your lifestyle choices, one where there is no moral conflict within yourself. :) For some further reading I recommend:
[URL]https://www.amazon.com/dp/1566396921/?tag=pfamazon01-20 (G. Francione - law perspective)
[URL]https://www.amazon.com/dp/0060011572/?tag=pfamazon01-20 (P. Singer - utilitarian perspective)
"FAQ"[/URL] (a link to some of the quotes I have posted in this thread)

Since I am going to finish debating in this thread, I would just like to end with an encouragement to everyone to look beyond their own desire (the best word for it) and consider a lifestyle change that will be more positive for their health, the environment, and yes, for the other animal species of our planet. Best of luck to everyone!

 

[nismaratwork]

Newai countered your thought, and I have already answered why animal rights still apply when instituted by humans.




Fair enough, I will stop after this post. I promise! :)



This is wrong, as many recent animal studies have shown. The question is not if they can plan for the future, or if they can worry about the next mortgage, the question is 'can they suffer' and the answer to that is a resounding yes.


Well I am glad you are at least seeing the dichotomy! I hope this will lead you to search for an answer to your lifestyle choices, one where there is no moral conflict within yourself. :) For some further reading I recommend:
[URL]https://www.amazon.com/dp/1566396921/?tag=pfamazon01-20 (G. Francione - law perspective)
[URL]https://www.amazon.com/dp/0060011572/?tag=pfamazon01-20 (P. Singer - utilitarian perspective)
"FAQ"[/URL] (a link to some of the quotes I have posted in this thread)

Since I am going to finish debating in this thread, I would just like to end with an encouragement to everyone to look beyond their own desire (the best word for it) and consider a lifestyle change that will be more positive for their health, the environment, and yes, for the other animal species of our planet. Best of luck to everyone![/QUOTE]

When you want to make a point like, "animals suffer", I'm happy to shut up and listen. If you'd choose to start a thread about your views on the broader issue, I'll be there. Otherwise, all I can say is that I understand your frustration, anger, and sadness... have tried to be what you appear to live daily... and I seem unable as yet. I won't stop making periodic attempts, but I it seems I lack a certain moral conviction. Not for a second however, do I believe that animals don't suffer when you slit their throats, rupture their femoral arteries, or stun and bleed them. When other options are available to kill humanely, I can't even claim to eat meat that's been treated as well as possible.

Still, I eat meat, but I don't feel the need to eat absurd amounts of it or every type just because I [I]could[/I]. I CERTAINLY don't want to eat an animal that has a fairly well developed means of long-range communication-through-language (whales, dolphins, elephants...), a persistent memory, and the capacity to recognize themselves in a damned mirror.