Japan has canceled the whaling season! Has the ends justified the means? Does the group Sea Shepherds get the credit?

Yes, the ends justify these means. Japan has made a mockery of the whaling conventions with large annual kills “for scientific research” including marketing the meat to the highest end sushi restaurants.

The Sea Shepherd deserves the civilized world’s thanks.

I still have 200+ pages to go in Moby Dick…I want nothing to do with whaling and I think it’s boring and should be abolished. Reading Melville drone about minute details did more to make me want whaling to stop than the weasley Sea Shepherds ever could.

Even if it’s “officially” canceled, I wouldn’t be surprised if the accidentally end up harpooning a few whales, “unofficially.”

No, the ends do not justify the means. :|
If the hunting is undertaken in a sustainable fashion (there is no sense in exterminating whales, because then you won’t have any more to hunt), then I see no reason to prohibit it. There’s nothing magical about whales; they’re animals, just like cows are animals.

@Nullo , you are clearly a land lubber and have no idea about the majesty and intelligence of whales.
No sir they are not “Just like cows” I politely suggest you take your Genesis mentality for a long walk off a short pier.

It saddens me how some people have no respect for nature. Unfortunately, some day not far from today we will only be able to learn about whales through books because of these people who think they can go around killing anything they desire just because they can. Mankind is banishing all sorts of species from this planet just because they can. Just because their simple minds can’t think beyond their savage impulses. How terribly sad.

@Nullo By the way, whales have the most complex language then any other creature on this planet, that is simply extraordinary. How you can say that they are “just” animals is beyond me.

@kheredia It’s quite simple: I divide the animate into “humans” and “animals.” If you’re not one, you are the other, or you’re a vegetable/fungus/mineral and so are not part of the debate.
You know what? I go deer hunting, too. Though I’m not yet very good at it.

@Nullo The problem with your logic is they are not animals just like cows. We can raise cows by the 100’s of thousands on feed lots. And we can raise chickens by the 10’s of millions. We can raise these animals in small contained environments to our hearts contents and all we have to worry about are prions (scary as that is). The ocean is something all together. Humankind has been extremely proficient at causing the collapse of various fish stocks world wide; Why extend that to a species that’s already been depleted to dangerous levels by a previous generations ignorance?

@risingfish The problem with my logic is the problem with your reading comprehension. Did you see that part where I said “hunting them responsibly?” That means, “not hunting them to extinction.”
I also said, “in a sustainable fashion” and “there is no sense in exterminating whales, because then you won’t have any more to hunt.” But if you’re too eager to spout your indoctrination to read, I can’t really do anything to help you.

These no ‘indoctrination’ involved. I happen to be a hunter historically, though I’ve hung up my guns except for occasional target shooting, I fully support hunting responsibly. But this is hardly responsible. Whale populations are already dangerously low, so there’s no reason to continue hunting them. It’s only inviting collapse.

Woo hoo! I’ll celebrate with you.

@risingfish * facepalm * You totally missed my point. Again.
Go back and re-read my posts. Carefully.
Then palm your own face.

@Nullo, I get the impression from your defensive arrogant demeanor that you think you are arguing with some new-age tree hugging vegan hippy here. No Sir, I eat meat and occasionally kill for it too. The issue is with what we are killing.

And please, refrain from your ad hominem remarks and lecturing on how superior your English grammar and spelling are, it makes you look weak… at the end of the day, since Humans, insects, reptiles, birds and mammals are all animals. You too are but an Animal.

@Nullo

Humans are animals.

Do you really see no ethical difference between stepping on an ant and killing a gorilla? Between running over a worm and harpooning a whale?

I’m glad they’ve called off whaling season for now! I’m not totally against hunting animals, but I do require that it be done humanely for me to support it.

@Odysseus My defensive, arrogant demeanor (and my criticism of your English) is in response to your condescension and the suggestion that I go kill myself. I take offense at few things, but those are two of them.

@crisw Humans are animals taxonomically. I see the taxa as a useful tool for categorizing, but it does not frame my view of the world.
No, I see no ethical difference. I do have less regard, generally, for that broad category known as “bugs,” but that’s because I don’t really like them.
Maybe you see gorillas as primitive humans. I don’t. We have a responsibility to look after the planet (Earths are scarce, after all), but this does not mean worshipping the thing.

Consider the case of the Missouri Department of Conservation. The MDOC keeps tabs on the number of deer, and every season publishes the rules for the year. They issue a fixed number of permits, and they work to curb poaching. This way, the hunters have their fun, and the deer are prevented from outgrowing their food supply and starving to death.

I think that it’s amazing that some people will go on about how we ought to save the whales, and then turn right around and condone the murder of millions of unborn children.

@Nullo well they aren’t exactly crucial part of the food chain. The unborn children that is.

@Nullo

Whales can suffer. Blastocysts and zygotes cannot.

I am utterly astounded that you see no ethical difference between killing a worm and a whale. What makes you think that humans are so different from all other animals? What one defining characteristic do you believe that all humans, no matter their age or ability, possess, that every single other animal on the planet lacks, that makes humans worthy of moral concern but other animals unworthy?

It cannot be being human, because that is tautological- it tells us nothing about what is so special about being human. It can’t be intelligence or the ability to make moral decisions, because you are granting blastocysts rights- and I assume you feel that infants also have rights. It can’t be religion, because that isn’t universal or independently verifiable. So what is it?

To me, the defining line is sentience- the ability to feel pain and pleasure and to have an individual existence that can go better or worse for the individual. To me, all sentient beings are worthy of moral concern and are not to be used solely as means to an end.

@Nullo , Lol ,You are trouble ain’t you?
“A long walk off of a short pier” does not usually induce death (Nor is it a death threat), merely an invitation to approach a surprisingly refreshing outlook. My apologies I didn’t stop to think that there are some who cannot swim.
Land lubber

@everephebe Because that is the ultimate in criteria. |:(

@crisw

“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
“And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”

That’s why.

Faith might be ephemeral to you, but it is the core of my paradigm.

@Odysseus It all depends on the wheres and hows of the pier, even if you can swim. I would rather not risk getting snarled in the vegetation, being dragged down by my waterlogged jeans, or dashed about by rough water. At least, not for your exercise – I’d just end up wet. Angry, too, if someone pushed me.

@syz . Sorry for taking my time to answer your question directly. (trolls on the bridge)
Yes Sea shepherd deserves a lot of credit but not all, I wold be inclined to view them as front-line troops in a just war. There were governments supporting them politically (especially NZ) as well as sponsors and millions of civilians from all over the world.
Group hug with the sea shepherds in the middle is my view.

@Nullo Ultimately yes, cause if we-done-kill-all-dem whales, and then vital parts of the aquatic food chain go kaput… Well, millions of children that have been born might be in trouble. I’m both pro choice and life. I think everyone should have the choice, mine leans more toward life. But I don’t condemn anyone else for their decision. Think of those unhappy kids if they grew up in a home where they weren’t wanted. I rather take care of the children that are, rather than the ones that aren’t.

But my real point is no body eats babies. :D

This is great news! :-D

According to the article linked in the OP, the ends have more than justified the means, and the Sea Shepherds get the credit.

My impression of the Sea Shepherds is that they are to whales and other marine animals, as Oskar Schindler was to the Jewish people of Germany in WW2.

The announcement has changed my opinion of the Sea Shepherds in a minor way.
I supported their efforts before, but I thought that Green Peace was more instrumental in protecting whales. Now it seems the mantle has passed to the Shepherds.

I also think that the moratorium should be extended to prohibit the culling of whales for “scientific research”.

Here’s a 1975 tribute to our cetacean friends.

@Brian1946 , Unfortunately Greenpeace has been infiltrated at the highest levels and is now just a propagandist puppet.
A Trojan Horse so to speak.
Hail the True Protectors

@everephebe Who says we’re going to kill all the whales? It’s not an either-or. Just like with the deer.
The unborn have their choices made for them; not very fair. An unhappy home beats death; you can leave the former, but death is hard to get over. This without getting into the theological ramifications.

I love that Japan has cancelled their whaling , because they way that Japan conducted their share of the whaling was bad…
I am not saying that the Norwegian whalers are perfect by any means, but they were a helluva lot better than their Japanese Collegues.
...Still I feel whaling is a viable way to get meat and other products, as long as it is done in a sustainable way. I still eat whale, I still hunt, I still dont like sea shepperds ways of doing
things, they are closer to eco-terror than comfort in my book…

I guess I am gonna catch some flak for this one ;)

@Staalesen , u got my vote.
It is a different argument when a fellow truly involved with the circle of life relies upon whale culling for lively-hood as a means of survival.
Now I have Norwegian blood and feel as though I may be beaten on this one.

The whole “Man has dominion over the animals” crap is just one of the many reasons that I think that organized religion is evil.

It’s early, but my hope is that this is the beginning of the end for whaling.

Incidentally, I was told this evening that there is a restaurant in Iceland that serves whale that was cryogenically frozen before the ban on whale meat began. Apparently it’s tasty.

@syz What does organization have to do with anything? The Bible says what it says.
Unless by ‘unorganized religion’ you mean sitting around feeling spiritual.

@Nullo No, I mean that I don’t care what individuals want to believe, but when a group of them gets together and create a “religion”, they do some fucking awful things.

@Nullo The Bible says what that translation says. And that says what somebody wrote down after years of oral tradition. And so theologians get to debate, and no one can truly claim to be correct.

And the non-Judeo-Christians get to believe something else.

But, your whole point was about responsible hunting. The fact is that the Japanese have been irresponsibly hunting a number of threatened species. And the loss of the large animals severely impacts the ecological balance of the oceans.

If God granted us dominion over the animals, I think he would want us to be responsible guardians of His creation.

@syz You speak of Christianity as if it were a club. Didn’t quite work out that way.

@zenvelo The “bad translation” angle doesn’t hold water. Consider: wouldn’t an all-powerful God be able to protect His most important memo to mankind? Certainly, He would want to; He went so far as to include dire warnings not to make things up.
Yes, there are some bad translations out there, where people have gone and changed Scripture to say things that they wanted. But otherwise, they say the same thing.
You are correct: dominion comes with the responsibility of looking after the place, to use it wisely. It does not, however, work out to whale-worship. If Japan has driven whale populations to dangerously low levels, then they should stop. Otherwise, they should be left alone.

I’m glad that they’ve canceled…Hopefully one day it’ll stop completely stop. To his their own.

@Nullo It was affirmed strongly on video and in eyewitness reports, as well as articles , that the whaling was not done in a sustainable, and certainly not in a humane, way.

And I hate to tell you this, but you quoting the bible up there to justify your obvious callousness (which many religious people do every day to justify war, and other atrocities) doesn’t make you look terribly credible on anything. It is also erroneous, because that very biblical passage advocates using animals for the purpose of survival, for nourishment – not, as in the case of whalers – for profits. What do you think Jesus would have said/thought if he watched those whalers slaughter brutally these whales and their young, and then observed them counting the money they made from selling them? I believe he would be angered and saddened. You are simply using a phrase that is open to translation for the purpose of seeming “right”.

Do me a favor. Watch The Cove, and see if you are still fairly indifferent afterward.

@Odysseus Whaling is not the only way of making a living. Humans have choices. they are thinking, resourceful, problem-solving beings. Therefore a human can choose another line of work in places like Japan and Norway. Whales have no choice, they are at the behest of humans. Whale meat is not a priority export, and most of it is sold to people who treat it as a delicacy. We don’t need to hunt them. Whaling is done because whale products fetch a high price. Greed drives its demand.Once again, money seems to me to be the root of most evils.

@ladymia69 Okay, so it wasn’t sustainable. Following my previous reasoning, they ought to scale back.
Yes, and Hitler liked art, so it must be evil. – _ – ;
It’s no justification; the Bible is the window through which I view the world. I have concluded that this isn’t very easy for people who look through other kinds of windows to realize. Tell me: what does your window show you about whales that would cause you to place their welfare on par with a human’s? And why don’t tuna, or fleas, look the same way?
It might have something to do with the way that my computer’s clock is saying “4:37 AM,” but I don’t see how quoting a Bible verse would hurt my credibility. I understand that a lot of people don’t put much stock in the Bible, but I’m using it here to explain my POV to @crisw.

As a matter of fact, that passage has nothing to do whatsoever with hunting, or even eating; it’s God establishing Man’s inherent difference from the animals, and entrusting Man with the Earth.
The very next verse (which I left out because I felt that it was irrelevant, since I was explaining why Man =/= animal) reads, “And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.” Of course, this was all pre-Fall, and in a resource-rich environment besides. Man’s dominion/stewardship never does get revoked.

I try not to make a habit of interpreting Scripture (outside of some life-application exegesis); I prefer instead to take the text as it comes, with a side of context. Where it is literal, I take it literally. Where it is figurative, I take it figuratively. In this case, “interpretation” is just another way to spell “trouble”.

I honestly don’t think that Jesus has any compunctions about whaling for money; He hung out with professional fishermen, after all. Whales aren’t fish, true, but at the end of the day they still sold dead animals for profit. Being big and blubbery and mammalian doesn’t count for much.

@Nullo

“Tell me: what does your window show you about whales that would cause you to place their welfare on par with a human’s? And why don’t tuna, or fleas, look the same way?”

I cannot possibly base my morality on an ancient book of myths that, from any outside perspective, is no more true or reliable or worthy of such use than any other ancient book of myths.

So I base it on what we can know about animals. Many animals (including humans) are “subjects of a life.” They can suffer pain and experience pleasure. Their lives can go better or worse for them. They have preferences, and they seek to fulfill them. In short, their lives matter to them, and they prefer to go on living.

There is no one characteristic, relevant to rights, that all animals lack and all humans share (besides species, which is irrelevant and tautological if trying to give humans special rights.) Therefore, in short, the things that we would not do to a fellow human, no matter their level of ability, we should not do to another sentient animal.

Which animals are sentient and deserving of rights? All those that meet the characteristics I mentioned above- they can suffer pain and experience pleasure. Their lives can go better or worse for them. They have preferences, and they seek to fulfill them. In short, their lives matter to them, and they prefer to go on living. This is opposed to very simple organisms that behave as automata and do not show much sign of having a “personality.”

Whales certainly meet these criteria. Tuna might. Fleas almost certainly do not. I, personally, draw the line roughly between vertebrates and invertebrates (with some invertebrates, such as most cephalopods, on the rights-holding side).

@crisw If I had wanted your condescension, I would have asked for it.

@Nullo

How is what I wrote in any way condescending? Or are you just avoiding actually discussing what I wrote?

@crisw I am not sure how he found what you wrote condescending, but I agree that there are most certainly levels of sentience. That is something not even die-hard vegans do not want to see. Whales are highly intelligent. Scientists have studied them profusely to come to these results. But I am not sure @Nullo is all that interested in science, because he has been quoting the bible.

@crisw You called my Bible “another book of myths.” Condescension if I’ve ever heard it.
I suppose that it’s good that you have some kind of morality, but I can’t say that I agree with it. Call me specist to yourself, if you like, but (broadly speaking) I see humans as being rather more unique, rather superior to, animals. Our circumstances are different enough that if I want to hunt a whale, there’s no moral reason why I shouldn’t be allowed to.

@Ladymia69 Oh, I like me some science. I just don’t use it to build my moral philosophies. And you may can your condescension, too.

@Nullo
“You called my Bible “another book of myths.””

What If I had said the same about the Koran or the Book of Mormon or the Bhagavad Gita? Would you be upset? To a nonbeliever, they are all one and the same- this is not condescension, this is reality. Just because you believe strongly that your book of myths is better than someone else’s doesn’t make it so.

And, even if you believe that humans are more important or superior to whales, how exactly does that give moral license to kill them?

Just popping in at the last minute to vex you all, each and everyone of you, and I am not necessarily defending @Nullo‘s position but you all do understand that this discussion would have gone a lot better, from the very beginning, if @Odysseus had responded to what @Nullo actually said and not attacked him, not put @Nullo on the defensive by telling him “I politely suggest you take your Genesis mentality for a long walk off a short pier.” That’s an ad hominum attack that the self-proclaimed more rational, better educated, non-believers, with their superior critical and analytical thinking skills shouldn’t have to lower themselves to, shouldn’t have to resort to, yes? Just a thought.