Whaling

Glad to have distilled the pig argument to this. I believe that the wild pig can be more safely assumed to life happily than one in a well run farm. No offense to Mr. MacDonald, but he can't completely know his pigs have the best life they could. Pigs evolved in the wild, and that is where, in a world without people, they would live. But the other ethical differences are really something people apply to actions. Both pigs live a life, the only life they know, and then they are killed. (Hopefully quickly). The pig doesn't know that he was birthed by the farmer or birthed naturally. He doesn't care who he provides for, or where he is when he is shot, he only wants to live a happy life. This is why I support sustainable hunting of wild animals. It is what nature intends for all carnivores/omnivores. Just look at all other predatory animals. I know, I know they are not capable of farming anyway, but they evolve to be this successful with hunting. Of course, no harvesting of anything from nature is "good" for the species. Picking a flower, stepping on an ant, all these things technically harm the species. But as long as they are done in sufficiently small amounts, the species will survive and thrive, as Minke whales have. While the needs of man are indeed increasing, whales will not likely be over-hunted and here's why: whales are currently hunted as an exotic meat. Few people eat it regularly, but many people eat it a little. It is a niche industry. And it is far easier to factory-farm twelve cows than it is to kill one whale. This is why unfortunately, factory-farming will likely fill the gap. I can't say I agree with Japan's high quotas. Especially those of large whales. I believe they should cut the quota, particularly because they hunt in the Antarctic, in which whale stocks have not been shown to be as large as in the north atlantic. Diplomacy is the way to do this, though. Not by terrorism by people such as sea shepherd. They only make Japan furious with anti-whalers and do nothing to save whales long-term. Yes, statistically, killing a whale is more of an impact than twelve cows. But many more than twelve cows are killed for every whale hunted. And cows are not generally a wild species. We effectively regulate the number of cows in the world. Whales are wild and sustainability is more of an issue for them. While con sees whaling as an unethical industry, comparable to factory farming in terms of ethics, many whalers do not have much of a fallback option for work. For example, Norwegians in Lofoten. They whale during the summer and fish during the winter. Without whaling, they can only fish. And this is not much of a lucrative field because of big companies controlling the market. This phenomenon has been seen. The decreased demand for whale meat has crippled entire communities and their culture. Our species gave the right to life to ourselves. That is basically earning it because we were capable of such a gift to ourselves. Our intelligence did not give us the right to life, we used our intelligence to give it to ourselves. Other animals may have intelligence, but they are incapable of protecting themselves from predators. In the real world, sentience is the determining factor. Humans are the only species where our intelligence is enough to really protect us. If an animal was intelligent enough to protect itself from being hunted, we would not be hunting it. All animals capable of feeling pain should be treated so they don't feel pain. Animals that do not feel pain or are not sentient are treated the same: without regard. It is not necessarily ethically right that humans are the dominant species, but we are. Cannibalism is different and is not practiced by many intelligent species. Whales may be more intelligent than cows, yet they are both sentient and must be treated equally. The moral hierarchy is not non-existent. It is simply not as con suggests it is. I believe it ranks: Humans, pain-feeling sentient beings, non-pain-feeling sentient beings, non-sentient beings. All mammals fall into the second tier. If killing a whale is evil because it disrupts the whale's pod, ends an intelligent life, etc etc. then killing a wild cow is just as evil, for the same reasons. The cow may not be as smart as the whale, but a life it is nonetheless. Just to clarify, I believe that killing animals is ethical as long as it is for the benefit of people. I argue that killing a whale is no different. Many, many animals are shown to be very intelligent, yet some are used for food. http://www.nbcnews.com... Pigs are eaten, octopi are eaten, squirrels are shot as vermin, etc. I do not support the slaughter of dolphins, due to mercury in the meat and currently inhumane killing methods, but they are much more intelligent than most baleen whales, which are most commonly hunted. Baleen whales have much simpler brains, because they do not hunt for food. They just swim through it. http://www.scientificamerican.com... Commercial whaling is completely legal. The IWC moratorium is merely a recommendation to IWC member states to halt commercial whaling. If a country doesn't want to obey it, no one's making them. Japan's activities are illegal because they were abusing a scientific permit and hunting in a protected area. Norway and Iceland's commercial whaling is completely legitimate. They hunt in their own domestic waters and have registered objections to the moratorium.