Whaling, Ethics, and NGO's

Whaling, Ethics, and NGO’s

            Why do whales, dolphins, manatees and other marine mammals deserve special rights and protection from harvesting? The truth is they probably don’t. To attribute special rights to a specific type of creature based solely upon its psychological and physiological characteristics such as intelligence and cuteness is arbitrary. I will clarify that the case is different when rights and protections are given to a species due to threat of extinction (although existence value is also debatable), however there is no reason people shouldn’t harvest and consume certain species of marine mammals if their populations can support it. In this blog I will explore some of the ethical aspects of the whaling controversy between Japan and the United States and the role that NGO’s should take in it.

             

             How do we decide what is right and wrong to harvest for consumption? Human beings are usually the first thing marked off the list as most people consider cannibalism to be deplorable. A close second or debatable first are things that will kill you. Next are disgusting and gross things, I will spare you the details. But after that short list the field is open to a myriad variety of personal tastes and values, none of which are right or wrong because they are a representation of a preference or personal belief that is only binding upon those who personally hold it. For example the Japanese like killing and eating whales because they see them as food but citizens of the United States don’t like killing and eating whales because they find them aesthetically pleasing or believe that they are too smart to warrant killing. Neither of these parties’ beliefs are binding on the other party. This means no matter how much U.S. citizens deplore the killing and eating of whales by the Japanese, the Japanese will still enjoy killing and eating whales. It should come as no surprise then that the Japanese continue to kill and eat whales despite the complaints of the U.S. and NGO’s. Thus the nature of ethics comes to the surface, ethics are codes of conduct that are binding only to the members of the group that share them. Even codes that declare certain actions to be innately wrong due to their nature are still essentially contracts between people and prone to adjustment as circumstances change. This is significant in the case of whaling because ethical claims that whaling are wrong have not and are not likely stop the Japanese from whaling because they don’t share the same ethical beliefs as U.S. citizens. Thus, the role of ethics in the case of whaling is merely to compound the problem by causing conflict between interested parties and reducing the viability of cooperation. The Sea Shepherd video we viewed in class is a great example of how people with strong ethical beliefs can cause far more harm than good, regardless of intentions.

            

                NGO’s have roles to play in dealing with environmental problems. They provide information, expertise, and political and social pressure for change. In the case of whaling a perfect example of how an NGO should not act is the Sea Shepherd video. NGO’s should not resort to shady tactics such as illegal boarding of Japanese whaling vessels and then subsequently lying to the media about it to try to put national pressure on the Japanese. All doing so does is create more hostility between the interested parties and generate better ratings for the show. A better approach would be to gather information on which whales were harvested, how they were used, who used them, the beliefs of the people who used them, and other useful bits of information that can be used to make a values judgment and informed decision. As a thought experiment do you deplore the taking of non-endangered whale species by indigenous people who have hunted whales for generations and it is an integral part of their cultural identity? What about if it was done by a U.S. citizen just for sport and no part of the whale was used? Is your answer different and why? Once the facts are gathered and circulated the NGO should try to influence the interested parties in order to achieve the desired result. In the case of whaling the desired result is dependent upon the information gathered and the values that stem from them. Perhaps the NGO could create a website that allowed Japanese whale consumers to communicate with U.S. whale lovers. This would allow for monitored and recorded communications between interested parties and a general proliferation of possible forms of cooperation and compromise (it is certainly more productive than throwing a bottle at a boat). To clarify, when I say monitor I mean for abuses of the site such as open hostility towards other users and other general code of conduct issues associated with online communications. In conclusion it is possible that Japanese whaling is perfectly sustainable and that the only reason for conflict is a difference in values which can only be mitigated through effective communication.