Whaling

Vital Clarification Pro made it clear in round two and three that he does not support the hunting of an endangered species. I did not address it in round three, as it was made clear that hunting endangered species is irrelevant to pro’s stance, and agreed upon by both. It does happen, but neither pro nor I support it and it was not addressed again. I’ve made the following clear for round two and three, yet it remains an issue in round four. So, I will repeat myself – hopefully clearer. “I feel better knowing the animal lived well rather than knowing that it wanted to die.” I agree with pro 100% on this. Which is why I have been arguing entirely against Ronald McDonald’s factory farm (FF: Factory farmed). My argument only supports the comfortable quality of life on Old McDonald’s quality farm (QF: quality farmed). Therefor, our arguments pertaining to piglet’s preferred life are not on the same page: Con: Nonexistent < QF Pro: FF < Wild To be on the same page, based on past arguments, I believe we can agree on one of the following: FF < Nonexistent < Wild < QF FF < Nonexistent < QF < Wild If it is agreeable that factory farming and nonexistence are the lesser options, then we can focus on the following: Wild < QF QF < Wild The validity of either claim can be debated in another place. To save time and debate space, let us assume they each (wild & QF) have equally contented lives. Wild = QF Now, as I have said, the QF pig would not have been given life without the needs of man. The wild pig however, needs nothing from man. QF pig needs man, man needs QF pig. Wild pig needs nature, man needs wild pig. That is where I believe there is a fundamental ethical difference between quality farmed meat and hunted meat. Now, back to whaling… In response to pro: Though I disagree that whaling can be labeled as “humane,” I agree with con that modern technology proves less inhumane than the earlier weapons used. Therefor, I will drop the argument of killing method unless further addressed. As for sustainability, my argument stands. Regardless of how bad whaling is for the species, whaling is not good for the species. So long as quotas are being correctly regulated, sustainability – though not a justification for whaling but rather more of an insurance policy – should not change. However, the need’s of man are ever increasing. Japan 1986-Ban on commercial whaling, Japan files for objection 1988- Japan lifts objection and begins scientific research. Quota: 308 minke whales per year 1994 Quota: 408 minke whales per year 2000 Quota: 408 minke whales, 50 byrdes whales, 10 sperm whales per year 2002 Quota: 458 minke whales, 50 byrdes whales, 10 sperm whales, 50 sei whales per year These marginal increases continued yearly until 2005 with a quota of 935 mink whales, 50 humpback whales, and 50 fin whales. [1] These are only Japan’s stats, but the overall stats have been increasing since the ban, which you can see on the graph illustrated (http://www.earthtimes.org... ). Thankfully, as you can see in the graph, media and activist groups like Sea Shepherd have proven successful in most recent years. Sustainability is also an issue when evaluated relatively. There are about 1.5 billion cows in the world [2]. According to pro, there are one million whales in the world, which means there are about 1500 cows for every whale. The average cow in the US is 610 kg and mink whales (most often hunted) on the heavier side, 6,800 kg [3, 4]. Twelve cows make up the weight of one minke whale. Statistically, killing one whale is more of an environmental impact than killing twelve cows. “Whaling provides food and jobs for hundreds to thousands of people.” There are many unethical industries that provide for man. Ie, factory farming. The end is not justified by the means here. We have not earned the privilege to life over all others, we were born into a species that gave themselves the right to life [round 3 source 4]. If humans do not have the right to life, then murder is permissible. If our intelligence is what put us on top, then there is value in intelligence. If there is value in intelligence, then those with more intelligence are of greater value. If whales are more intelligent than cows, then whales are more valuable. “She states that it is more unethical to kill a human than a chimpanzee, and has earlier stated that whales and chimps are similarly intelligent. Yet she believes killing a whale is akin to killing a human?” This is the strawman fallacy. Please reread my statements. If there is no moral hierarchy of species in the ‘real world’ as pro suggests, then killing a zoo full of mammals would be the moral equivalent to weeding your garden, washing your hands to kill bacteria, or flooding ant piles. Furthermore, killing a pig would be a moral equivalent to murder. However this does not seem to be the case, so there is some moral hierarchy. “Self-awareness, suffering and a social culture along with high mental abilities are a hallmark of cetaceans, an order grouping more than 80 whales, dolphins and porpoises, say marine biologists.” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk...) this includes all baleen whales. Pro appeals to tradition (http://en.wikipedia.org...) when comparing the communication of whales to that of a frog or octopus. I’m sure the ethics of hunting an intelligent species could be an entire debate in itself, but frogs and squid are not mammals and are unrelated to my argument. Furthermore, commercial whaling is not in fact legal, and japan is now aware of this. (http://uk.whales.org...) [1] http://uk.whales.org... [2] http://www.pbs.org... [3] http://www.americancattlemen.com... [4] http://marinebio.org...