Eating Whales

[Spud Emperor]

Interesting posts Neverfly and I agree that hunting prey without potentially being prey yourself is dishonourable especially in this day and age.
The only hunting I do personally is spearfishing and in that situation I am always in the realm of bigger predators than myself.

I just wonder if the Japanese could possibly be shamed into cessation of the wicked whaling ways. Apparently they are always determined to save face.
Maybe, instead of trying to prevent them from taking whales altogether a more level playing field could be introduced, i.e. no mechanical harpoons, traditional boats (which could be flattened by a whales tail, no high tech gear, just man against the elements and the beasts. I still prefer cessation but a campaign which labels the current practices as completely dishonourable just might strike a distasteful chord with Old Nipponese sensibilities.

 

[Neverfly]

Interesting posts Neverfly and I agree that hunting prey without potentially being prey yourself is dishonourable especially in this day and age.
The only hunting I do personally is spearfishing and in that situation I am always in the realm of bigger predators than myself.

I just wonder if the Japanese could possibly be shamed into cessation of the wicked whaling ways. Apparently they are always determined to save face.
Maybe, instead of trying to prevent them from taking whales altogether a more level playing field could be introduced, i.e. no mechanical harpoons, traditional boats (which could be flattened by a whales tail, no high tech gear, just man against the elements and the beasts. I still prefer cessation but a campaign which labels the current practices as completely dishonourable just might strike a distasteful chord with Old Nipponese sensibilities.

I see exactly where you are coming from but I must make a point. In the process of making it, do not mistake what I say as an accusation toward you of racial profiling. It is not intended as such- But I know no other way to say what I want without it coming across that way.
So you're warned...

Humankind as a whole always wants the lazy path, the easiest way. It's not a Japanese thing.
We cull cattle the same way- we're just accustomed to it and there are plenty of cows. In fact, someone above in a post pointed out that cows are bred for this purpose.

It would be a near impossible task to encourage a return to hard work and danger. Very few people would sign up.
And no one would want to push the issue as they would make a hypocrite of themselves trying. Japanese or not.

 

[Spud Emperor]

I have no problem with the odd bit of racial profiling. I do it to myself often enough.
As I said the Japanese have some wonderful traits and their treatment of seafood is generally one of them.
I used to catch Pink Snapper and crayfish off the Western Australian coast almost exclusively for the Japanese market (they paid the highest price) but the catch had to be treated with the utmost care, starting with the humane culling of the fish (Ike Jime) and having available in Japan before the very first signs of aging set in.
There needs to be a change of consciousness. At present, the killing of whales is seen the same way as squashing an insect by the Japanese.

 

[Neverfly]

I have no problem with the odd bit of racial profiling. I do it to myself often enough.
As I said the Japanese have some wonderful traits and their treatment of seafood is generally one of them.
I used to catch Pink Snapper and crayfish off the Western Australian coast almost exclusively for the Japanese market (they paid the highest price) but the catch had to be treated with the utmost care, starting with the humane culling of the fish (Ike Jime) and having available in Japan before the very first signs of aging set in.
There needs to be a change of consciousness. At present, the killing of whales is seen the same way as squashing an insect by the Japanese.

A friend told me about a time when he was stationed in the Philippines.
He woke up one night to this horrifying howling. Looking out the window, he saw two men were skinning a dog, preparing it to be carved up to be cooked.
It was still alive. They hadn't bothered to kill it before they started in on their task.

I find such a lack of empathy- an ungrateful perspective to life and death and the act of taking a life for sustenance not only appalling, but unnatural.

 

[BenTheMan]

The idea that hunting whales is cultural, well that might just work for the Inuit but we're not exactly talking about the ancient Japanese subsistence techniques which required the killing of half a dozen whales for survival are we?

Who are you to dictate the lines of Japanese Culture?

 

[BenTheMan]

Interesting posts Neverfly and I agree that hunting prey without potentially being prey yourself is dishonourable especially in this day and age.

Why?

 

[cosmictraveler]

The reason they hunt whales is because they have little land to raise cattle or other types of animals for consumption.

 

[sifreak21]

Who are you to dictate the lines of Japanese Culture?

because they use the front as "scientific research" to beable to kill whales not that they will eat them.. and if something is a science project you dont eat it.. its just a cover so they can do it and this past year i believe they put an endangered spices on it.. and the ammount the whales suffer is huge

 

[Neverfly]

Why?

The question begs a response even though this is one of those things that is not mathematical or entirely based on scientific reasoning.
It's an opinion- a belief, if you will; Perhaps a construct or invention of "morality." Morals most often seem to be formulated on what we want or don't want to happen to ourselves.

Wouldn't you prefer to be able to defend your conscious existence? Or does being trapped in a cage and suddenly terminated seem appealing to you?
You may have your reasons for choosing the latter that make sense to you.

But for me- it's not my nature. It may not even be logical- But it's still just the way I am.
I wanna be able to fight back. And being trapped and stabbed does not appeal to me at all. I would like to think I'll always have a fighting chance; that instinctive desire to overcome the odds and survive.
I imagine my natural brothers feel that way even more strongly than I do. To extend them that 'right' even if I have the (might makes right) power to withhold it.

In the end, I am an animal. I feel as an animal does. I get angry when threatened and my hackles rise. I get jealous when some other animal wants what is mine. Even if I'm not chewing on my bone at that moment, the other dogs cannot have it.
As an animal with heightened sense of self, I can contemplate deep and profound things my little brothers can't. But I do not see this as an excuse to exert my Illusions of Control over them as other humans do. I am a different animal, but not a 'better' animal and will not give in to self righteous indignation simply because I can contemplate astronomy. I cannot do the things other animals can do. I can admire their traits without thinking less of them.
Another thread touches on the fallacy of superiority.

So semi-developed human brains can go a little bit further while those brains think they go further than they actually do. That doesn't give them the "God Given Right" to subjugate others and behave badly. Even if no one can stand up against it- I, as one man, can make My Own Choice to not be that way.

I am not Spud and am not presuming to speak on his behalf.

But since your point also addresses my own- I can respond to your other question, "Who are you to judge?"
We all judge. Constantly and all the time. Judgment helps keep things in check. As a skeptic, it can ensure that things are eyed critically.
If Spud judges the cultural aspects of Japanese behavior- Who are You to say he cannot? Anymore than you can complain about someone expressing distaste over cannibalism. I cannot show evidence at this time that you dare to judge others and express distaste over what another cultural or group or political party does--- But I'll wager all my income that you DO it.

 

[Cowboy]

The Japanese have some traits to be admired. Their stubborn, ugly and completely unempathetic slaughter of the most impressive species on Earth is not one of them.

In fairness to the Japanese, they haven't actually slaughtered any humans since WWII.

 

[Pinwheel]

I like whales. But I couldnt eat a whole one.

 

[Cowboy]

I like whales. But I couldnt eat a whole one.

I've heard of a restaurant that will give you a free meal if you can.

 

[Neverfly]

In fairness to the Japanese, they haven't actually slaughtered any humans since WWII.

Only because the conspiracy to use run away cars backfired.

 

[wsionynw]

Do the Japanese really eat that much whale meat? Would they all starve if they couldn't get whale meat? I doubt it. Not only that but whale meat can contain very high levels of mercury, not good at all for your health.

I think the truth is far more political, the government for some reason don't want to piss of the handful of people that make a living killing whales. It didn't stop us here in the UK when we banned fox hunting, so I'm sure the Japanese will see sense before long (and the Canadians for that matter).

Regarding the OP, to compare farming cattle to hunting whales, both are bad for the environment.

 

[BenTheMan]

The question begs a response even though this is one of those things that is not mathematical or entirely based on scientific reasoning.

I would expect nothing less from in a place called ``Ethics, Morality and Justice''.

Wouldn't you prefer to be able to defend your conscious existence? Or does being trapped in a cage and suddenly terminated seem appealing to you?
You may have your reasons for choosing the latter that make sense to you.

Well, you realize you're promoting animals to reasoning beings, or your demoting yourself. But I think I agree with you if this is what you meant.

Anyway, I think most people have a complete wrong picture in their head when it comes to ``hunting''. I would call what you described ``trapping'', and not hunting.

Let me describe the way I have hunted in the past, and you can tell me whether you think it is immoral. I put out food for deer (corn), and go sit in a camouflaged place. When the deer comes, I shoot it, usually going for a head or neck shot to ensure a clean kill (so I don't have to track it through the brush) or a miss.

So semi-developed human brains can go a little bit further while those brains think they go further than they actually do. That doesn't give them the "God Given Right" to subjugate others and behave badly. Even if no one can stand up against it- I, as one man, can make My Own Choice to not be that way.

Hmm. Do you suppose that their natural predators give their prey the same courtesy? We have gained, through evolution, a superior advantage over our prey. You're saying that it's unethical to use our intelligence to outwit prey? I don't think you're necessarily wrong, but I would like to have this clarified. You're (presumably) not against hunting or eating meat, but somehow you find the fact that we have a competitive advantage over our prey distasteful?

If Spud judges the cultural aspects of Japanese behavior- Who are You to say he cannot? Anymore than you can complain about someone expressing distaste over cannibalism. I cannot show evidence at this time that you dare to judge others and express distaste over what another cultural or group or political party does--- But I'll wager all my income that you DO it.

Oh sure I make judgments all the time, and I probably should have made my point a bit more clearly. Should our judgments dictate what is right and wrong in regards to the Japanese? Let me give an example: There are no shortages of places at SciForums where you will find people railing against America's past transgressions, and the atitude that Western-style democracy be imposed by force. Is that really any different from saying ``You Japanese want to eat whales, and even though you feel it is your cultural right, we find the practice distasteful, therefore, you no longer have that right.''

 

[Neverfly]

Well, you realize you're promoting animals to reasoning beings, or your demoting yourself. But I think I agree with you if this is what you meant.

Most higher mammals show extensive reasoning skills. Birds do as well.
Animals exist on many levels of the field of reasoning ability. Some are way up there and some, like spiders, are natures little automatons.
We happen to be WAY up there. But I never claimed a level playing field in reasoning skills and I was clear as to such.

Anyway, I think most people have a complete wrong picture in their head when it comes to ``hunting''. I would call what you described ``trapping'', and not hunting.

Slaughter houses is trapping. Which is the majority of the scavenger work I was referring to.

Let me describe the way I have hunted in the past, and you can tell me whether you think it is immoral. I put out food for deer (corn), and go sit in a camouflaged place. When the deer comes, I shoot it, usually going for a head or neck shot to ensure a clean kill (so I don't have to track it through the brush) or a miss.

It is hunting. It is not My Way Of Hunting. But it makes you an ethical hunter in my mind.
Understand: I do not expect everyone to agree with me or I'll call them "Immoral."
In fact, I never used the word "Immoral" in my points. There is no absolute morality.

Hmm. Do you suppose that their natural predators give their prey the same courtesy? We have gained, through evolution, a superior advantage over our prey. You're saying that it's unethical to use our intelligence to outwit prey? I don't think you're necessarily wrong, but I would like to have this clarified. You're (presumably) not against hunting or eating meat, but somehow you find the fact that we have a competitive advantage over our prey distasteful?

Natural predators do not reason it out as we do. Yes, natural predators HAVE been documented to express empathy and even mercy. My own hunting rules disagree with mercy as I stated (For obvious reasons). There is no absolute to this, either. The evolutionary advantage of the brain came with the responsibility to use that brain.

We use that advantage thanklessly and coldly. Ethics, like morality is a human construct. But my reasoning is simple: I can THINK and Reason about the Destructive Damage we cause.

Oh sure I make judgments all the time, and I probably should have made my point a bit more clearly. Should our judgments dictate what is right and wrong in regards to the Japanese? Let me give an example: There are no shortages of places at SciForums where you will find people railing against America's past transgressions, and the atitude that Western-style democracy be imposed by force. Is that really any different from saying ``You Japanese want to eat whales, and even though you feel it is your cultural right, we find the practice distasteful, therefore, you no longer have that right.''

There is a difference between dictating and enforcing-- and discussing and getting the other side to see your points. If they see your points and decide that those points are valid- change can occur that is mutual.
That is the purpose of discussion and in exchanging ideas.

I had not read anything in Spuds posts that reflect a desire on his part to dictate or enforce his ideas-- I could be wrong.

 

[BenTheMan]

Natural predators do not reason it out as we do. Yes, natural predators HAVE been documented to express empathy and even mercy. My own hunting rules disagree with mercy as I stated (For obvious reasons). There is no absolute to this, either. The evolutionary advantage of the brain came with the responsibility to use that brain.

Well, for example: have you ever watched a cat play with an injured mouse? While there may be some documented cases of animals showing empathy, there are probably many more cases of animals showing the opposite of empathy.

There is a difference between dictating and enforcing-- and discussing and getting the other side to see your points. If they see your points and decide that those points are valid- change can occur that is mutual.
That is the purpose of discussion and in exchanging ideas.

I had not read anything in Spuds posts that reflect a desire on his part to dictate or enforce his ideas-- I could be wrong.

But this is where it starts, right? First you establish that it is universally wrong, then you pass a law to enforce it. Do you think that the Greenpeace activists who harass Japanese whalers don't sign petitions for legislation protecting whales?

 

[Neverfly]

Well, for example: have you ever watched a cat play with an injured mouse? While there may be some documented cases of animals showing empathy, there are probably many more cases of animals showing the opposite of empathy.

True.

But this is where it starts, right? First you establish that it is universally wrong, then you pass a law to enforce it. Do you think that the Greenpeace activists who harass Japanese whalers don't sign petitions for legislation protecting whales?

Non sequitor or post hoc ergo propter hoc.


Maybe They do. Do not assign the actions of others onto me.
I have stated my case and I am doing the difficult task of arguing out of Belief.
That doesn't mean I would always support laws to control it. Laws don't make people think about self improvement, they only give people something to break.

 

[BenTheMan]

Non sequitor or post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Hardly

I appreciate your theoretical pretenses, however, the OP clearly didn't frame the discussion that way. Theoretically I agree: there may not be a correlation between ``moral behavior'', however that's defined, and the law of the land.

I would point out that, although you may not support legislation banning whaling, most people who argue this DO support such legislation.

 

[Neverfly]

Hardly

I appreciate your theoretical pretenses, however, the OP clearly didn't frame the discussion that way. Theoretically I agree: there may not be a correlation between ``moral behavior'', however that's defined, and the law of the land.

I would point out that, although you may not support legislation banning whaling, most people who argue this DO support such legislation.

If I point out that that is Argumentum Ad Populum, will you say, "Hardly"?