What do you think about Japanese whaling

[Thiel]

Ironically, the Japanese whaling industry was pretty much dead when the Sea Shepherd society (There's a bunch of lunatics for you) started attacking the whalers, at which point it became a case of national pride.

So yeah, good on you Sea Shepherds...

[czokletmuss]

Animals have no rights because only humans can have rights. Therefore what's the problem? We kill more chickens and pigs every day globally than wales - and I mean quantity in tonnes, not in individuals. Besides, there's nothing which can be done with it - wales are going extinct soon, just like tigers.

[Pawelk198604]

I can imagine:

Greenpeace's craft crashes through the rolling antarctic waves, salty spray blasting the hull. Its captain grimly watches the radar, eyes narrowing on a speck. He grabs his old, white radio microphone and through bearded lips orders,

"General quarters, general quarters, all hands to battle stations, all hands to battle stations."

Belowdeck the crew prepares: boots bang across the metal floors, foul-weather gear whooshes from bulkhead racks, and assault crafts' outboard motors bark and rumble. Young hearts pound in feary breasts. Soon the whaler looms on the horizon, and the captain again speaks, voice crackling through weathered speakers,

"Assault teams, deploy!"

Pressure clamps release the pontoon craft, which onward roar, black hulls splashing the surface. Within minutes they approach the whaler and to their horror see a flotilla of warships waiting.

-Duxwing

My point exactly

That would be something that I can see the headlines on CNN, "War on whales'

"The escalation of the conflict in the Pacific, does there will be World War III?"

[Scotius]

Animals have no rights because only humans can have rights. Therefore what's the problem? We kill more chickens and pigs every day globally than wales - and I mean quantity in tonnes, not in individuals. Besides, there's nothing which can be done with it - wales are going extinct soon, just like tigers.

Can we prevent it? Probably. Should we try? Hell, yes!

[AtomicNinja17]

Its just that the whales are a crucial part of the ecosystem that cannot be replaced

[Klingon Admiral]

Animals have no rights because only humans can have rights. Therefore what's the problem? We kill more chickens and pigs every day globally than wales - and I mean quantity in tonnes, not in individuals. Besides, there's nothing which can be done with it - wales are going extinct soon, just like tigers.

There is an estimated global population of 19 billion chicken, and 1 billion pigs. Both species are pretty well off. And the notion that whales will go extinct soon is just ridiculous , as the population of the different whale species are everywhere from a few hundred thousand individuals to a few thousand left.

[peadar1987]

[Tw1]

There is an estimated global population of 19 billion chicken, and 1 billion pigs.

They've got that whole trick the humans into breading us racket going on. Pretty clever.

[czokletmuss]

There is an estimated global population of 19 billion chicken, and 1 billion pigs. Both species are pretty well off. And the notion that whales will go extinct soon is just ridiculous , as the population of the different whale species are everywhere from a few hundred thousand individuals to a few thousand left.

I thought we were talking about blue whales? There are only couple of thousand of them left.

Source: wikipedia.org

[Javster]

I can't stand the idea, I think most species of whales are endangered already...

[Pawelk198604]

The whales need to be protected, but first you have to convince the people of Japan, we need to remember that their Culture is different and much older than Western culture.

I wonder if someday may lead to an international incident because of this. Assume the situation of Australia sends its fleet in the Antarctic region, in order to protect "their territorial waters", Australia has territorial claims to Antarctica. In my opinion they have no rights, because Antarctica belongs to all humanity. But saving the whales is indeed a noble goal. Assume Australia sends its fleet to expel whalers. Japans also sends its fleet to protect the whalers. Question what's next?

[Klingon Admiral]

This:

Although I doubt Australia would ever do such a thing, they are one of the most reactionary nations on this planet.

[lajoswinkler]

Animals have no rights because only humans can have rights. Therefore what's the problem? We kill more chickens and pigs every day globally than wales - and I mean quantity in tonnes, not in individuals. Besides, there's nothing which can be done with it - wales are going extinct soon, just like tigers.

"Rights" are arbitrary, both moral and legal. Outside our abstract minds they do not exist, and we're the only ones who respect and enforce them.

Respecting a certain animal species' right to be left alone depends entirely on human understanding, on the level of our social and moral evolution.

Human are animals, too, you know? Homo sapiens L., that's our official taxonomic name.

Even if we respect the idea that humans should be treated better (and again, it's arbitrary, it's not written in stone), you can't shove all animals in one category.

Compare this little brainless fella here

to Koko the gorilla

which is an highly evolved primate capable of using hundreds of sign language signs. You can actually talk to her like with a young child. There are adult humans with less intelect than her!

Care to say she doesn't have rights and that you wouldn't defend her from someone who wants to eat her?

Even if she doesn't have any legal rights, we must grant her with at least some moral rights like the right to live and the right to not be treated badly. Otherwise we aren't humane.

[czokletmuss]

"Rights" are arbitrary, both moral and legal. Outside our abstract minds they do not exist, and we're the only ones who respect and enforce them.

Respecting a certain animal species' right to be left alone depends entirely on human understanding, on the level of our social and moral evolution. (...)

Care to say she doesn't have rights and that you wouldn't defend her from someone who wants to eat her?

Even if she doesn't have any legal rights, we must grant her with at least some moral rights like the right to live and the right to not be treated badly. Otherwise we aren't humane.

I'm refering to classic distinction based on reason. Aristotle divided it like this (this is pre-Christian philosophy, so let the word "sould" don't fool you):

Animals lack reason, that's the main issue. Of course snail is a smaller being than a whale is (in every sense of this word) - so? And yes, of course we are H. sapiens sapiens but again, animals don't have this rational part thanks to which we can create morality or thanks to which we create civilisation (and build rockets btw). Do you think animals are giving us rights? Of course they not, they can't - they are immoral like a nature is (in a philosophical sense of this word)

Besides, you're saying that rights are abstract and are basically made up by us (I agree to a degree) but then you say that we must grant other animals rights or we aren't humane. Why? On what basis? What is the source of this obligation?

[Klingon Admiral]

Yet, larger groups of humans don't differ too much from herds of animals. Fear, hunger and hatred are stronger than any reason, sadly.

[lajoswinkler]

You've chosen to pick on the snail and you've completely ignored the very intelligent gorilla. In addition to that, you're using ancient Greek philosophy to back up your claim instead of using psychology and other sciences. How can you be right? Those arguments are failed.

I'm not saying we should grant all animals with full sets of human rights. I'm saying 2 things. First, not all animals (excluding humans) are alike - there is a whole spectrum of neural development, from no nerve matter at all (sponges), to extremely developed prefrontal cortex allowing an animal to have a sense of oneself, just to mention one detail. Therefore, we should act according to their development.

Second, even the animal with the most developed brain which produces the intelect and other functions, can't be equalized with human beings. For example if there's a human being you need to rescue, and a chimp, the law must always give more rights to the human being. Therefore if a firefighter choses to save a chimp and let the human burn in fire, he should be brought in front of a court.

I'm certainly not advocating for people who would want all animals to gain all rights humans already have. That's irrational. But to treat an animal like you'd tread a wasp? That's inhumane and disgusting!

[mrfox]

animals don't have this rational part thanks to which we can create morality or thanks to which we create civilisation

^this:cool:

Morality at its core is a social construct. As we cannot yet enter a mutually consentual contract with any group of animals (individuals, such as pets or work animals, can be exceptions) outside of our own species, it is illogical to project the concept of rights and liberties to them, as they do not have the capacity to reciprocate.

[lajoswinkler]

^this:cool:

Morality at its core is a social construct. As we cannot yet enter a mutually consentual contract with any group of animals (individuals, such as pets or work animals, can be exceptions) outside of our own species, it is illogical to project the concept of rights and liberties to them, as they do not have the capacity to reciprocate.

So using this logic, if an alien species from outer space, with more developed neural matter comes to visit us and decides to eat us or play cannon tennis (with us playing the role of a ball), that's ok because they're smarter?

I think you'd reconsider your thoughts in such situation very quickly.

Some of you here are forgetting that with great neural development comes empathy, too. If it weren't for empathy, our society would never ever exist. We'd be worse than meerkats.

[camlost]

Animals have no rights because only humans can have rights. Therefore what's the problem? We kill more chickens and pigs every day globally than wales - and I mean quantity in tonnes, not in individuals. Besides, there's nothing which can be done with it - wales are going extinct soon, just like tigers.

It's the ecological system that needs be protected, not animal rights.

[Klingon Admiral]

So using this logic, if an alien species from outer space, with more developed neural matter comes to visit us and decides to eat us or play cannon tennis (with us playing the role of a ball), that's ok because they're smarter?

I think you'd reconsider your thoughts in such situation very quickly.

Some of you here are forgetting that with great neural development comes empathy, too. If it weren't for empathy, our society would never ever exist. We'd be worse than meerkats.

Let's go even further than that? What if I decide that humans are not reasonable? Am I then allowed to kill them as I please? The best way to troll a civilization built on social conventions is forsaking these conventions.

[czokletmuss]

You've chosen to pick on the snail and you've completely ignored the very intelligent gorilla. In addition to that, you're using ancient Greek philosophy to back up your claim instead of using psychology and other sciences. How can you be right? Those arguments are failed.

How am I wrong than? Do you have some counterarguments for my obviously wrong claims based on ancient philosophy?

First, not all animals (excluding humans) are alike - there is a whole spectrum of neural development, from no nerve matter at all (sponges), to extremely developed prefrontal cortex allowing an animal to have a sense of oneself, just to mention one detail. Therefore, we should act according to their development.

Of course, sponge is a whole different thing than a primate. And we can act accrodingly - because we want to. Because we are moral beings. But where is the source of the obligation to do so? Could you please be more precise why should we do this?

I'm certainly not advocating for people who would want all animals to gain all rights humans already have. That's irrational. But to treat an animal like you'd tread a wasp? That's inhumane and disgusting!

I agree that this would be irrational. But why killing a wasp is good and killing a chicken for food is wrong? Or a deer for fun? Or a whale for whatever reason? Yes, gorillas and kittens are cute and sweet with those big eyes and everything but what is the difference in quality (philosophically speaking) between a dog and a snake or frog? More developed nervous system? What are you going to do with a disabled people with severe develpment problems then?

Second, even the animal with the most developed brain which produces the intelect and other functions, can't be equalized with human beings. For example if there's a human being you need to rescue, and a chimp, the law must always give more rights to the human being. Therefore if a firefighter choses to save a chimp and let the human burn in fire, he should be brought in front of a court.

But if this human was a small child in a persistent vegetative state with serious development deficiencies in nervous system due to some DNA problems and the gorilla was really cute, healthy and happy (and can communicate using basic sign system) whom would you choose to save?

[mrfox]

So using this logic, if an alien species from outer space, with more developed neural matter comes to visit us and decides to eat us or play cannon tennis (with us playing the role of a ball), that's ok because they're smarter?

I think you'd reconsider your thoughts in such situation very quickly.

Some of you here are forgetting that with great neural development comes empathy, too. If it weren't for empathy, our society would never ever exist. We'd be worse than meerkats.

If we differ on the same level as the example given above, we would be lacking the capacity to comprehend the intentions, values, or meaning of what is to happen, just like how your intestinal bacteria has no idea you just took some penicillin for the flu and are about to wipe them out.

[jwenting]

I watched Whale Wars on TV, i was wondering would be if Japan send warships to escort whaling fleet

I hope they sink those pirates that attack fishing vessels and kill the crew (and yes, that's what those guys do, they kill fishermen and sink their ships, mass murder).

It's time to start arming fishing fleets against such attacks. A few 40mm Bofors or Oerlikon and maybe some RPGs should do wonders. No need to waste fuel for military escort of the fishing fleets that way either, and adds some entertainment for the crews during slow periods, practicing on empty barrels.

[Klingon Admiral]

I hope they sink those pirates that attack fishing vessels and kill the crew (and yes, that's what those guys do, they kill fishermen and sink their ships, mass murder).

[citation needed]

[lajoswinkler]

Let's go even further than that? What if I decide that humans are not reasonable? Am I then allowed to kill them as I please? The best way to troll a civilization built on social conventions is forsaking these conventions.

Yes, we could do that, too. We quickly come to a conclusion that we have the right to exterminate people who don't fit our default ways of thinking (whatever the reason is), and that's where we fail as human beings.

How am I wrong than? Do you have some counterarguments for my obviously wrong claims based on ancient philosophy?

Of course, sponge is a whole different thing than a primate. And we can act accrodingly - because we want to. Because we are moral beings. But where is the source of the obligation to do so? Could you please be more precise why should we do this?

What you're using now is sophism. No, I can't give you a purely mathematical reason why.

Why do we help injured people? There is no sound moral argument on that because you can always ask "but why?" and that will never end.

I agree that this would be irrational. But why killing a wasp is good and killing a chicken for food is wrong? Or a deer for fun? Or a whale for whatever reason? Yes, gorillas and kittens are cute and sweet with those big eyes and everything but what is the difference in quality (philosophically speaking) between a dog and a snake or frog? More developed nervous system? What are you going to do with a disabled people with severe develpment problems then?

I never said killing a wasp is good. I've just compared treating gorillas the same way we treat wasps. I will not actively search for wasps in order to kill them, of course. I'm not a deranged person. If I see one in my house, I'll open the window. If a wasp is trying to attack me or I can't make it leave my icecream, I'll use a pesticide or newspapers.

If a gorilla attacks me and I have a weapon, I'll try to disable it even if I need to kill it. I'm defending my life and I value my life over a life of a gorilla.

But if there's a forest filled with gorillas and a corporation seeks to destroy the forest and kill the gorillas in the process, kill them like pests, I will be against it. If someone wants to eat a gorilla because he's craving for some fancy gorilla meat, I'll be against it.

There are levels of behaviour here. You can't shove everything into good and bad and back it up with ancient Greek philosophy.

But if this human was a small child in a persistent vegetative state with serious development deficiencies in nervous system due to some DNA problems and the gorilla was really cute, healthy and happy (and can communicate using basic sign system) whom would you choose to save?

Persistent vegetative state is a state caused by unrepairable brain damage, with very low probability of regaining consciousness, diagnosed after a few weeks of vegetative state. After a year, it's permanent.

There is a possibility of recovery. Also, there is a reasonable chance that the brain might be aware and could suffer. Letting such child burn to death would be very inhumane. The child wins, legally and morally.

If we differ on the same level as the example given above, we would be lacking the capacity to comprehend the intentions, values, or meaning of what is to happen, just like how your intestinal bacteria has no idea you just took some penicillin for the flu and are about to wipe them out.

Unlike humans, bacterial cells have absolutely no way of processing any information. So it's not "just like how", at all.