Faroese Annual Dolphin Massacre

[de Maistre]

Are you a vegetarian, El_Machinae?

 

[peter grimes]

Are you a vegetarian, El_Machinae?

You realize that's irrelevant, right?

 

[BenitoChavez]

Well let me put it a a different way - I don't think there is anything innately wrong with killing any sapient species outside of humanity

Why? What makes humans so much better than a Dolphin or a Chimpanzee or any other sapient species?

I just don't understand how people can support such Eurocentric cultural imperialism though

An interesting sentiment considering that the Faroese are European.

 

[de Maistre]

You realize that's irrelevant, right?

Meat is eaten for pleasure, it isn't a necessary part of the human diet. It also entails hurting and killing animals. If it's wrong to hurt an animal for pleasure then it's wrong to eat an animal for pleasure.

 

[El_Machinae]

Are you a vegetarian, El_Machinae?

You realize that's irrelevant, right?

Meat is eaten for pleasure, it isn't a necessary part of the human diet. It also entails hurting and killing animals. If it's wrong to hurt an animal for pleasure then it's wrong to eat an animal for pleasure.

Well, peter was referring to the difference between 'sapience' and 'sentience', but I get your point. But, there are moral gradients: killing a 'sapient' is 'worse' than killing a 'mere sentient'. Torturing an animal to death is 'worse' than cleanly killing an animal. So, after that, it's gradients. I'm not convinced that killing a non-sapient is 'worse' then torturing one, in fact, I'd go the other route.

No, I am not a vegetarian. I'm too weak, though I try to be one whenever I have the willpower. I also eat ice cream when I am 'weak'. But, I do avoid eating sapient animals. And, when given the choice, I'll eat meat that's as 'torture free' as I can find.

 

[de Maistre]

Well, peter was referring to the difference between 'sapience' and 'sentience', but I get your point. But, there are moral gradients: killing a 'sapient' is 'worse' than killing a 'mere sentient'. Torturing an animal to death is 'worse' than cleanly killing an animal. So, after that, it's gradients. I'm not convinced that killing a non-sapient is 'worse' then torturing one, in fact, I'd go the other route.

No, I am not a vegetarian. I'm too weak, though I try to be one whenever I have the willpower. I also eat ice cream when I am 'weak'. But, I do avoid eating sapient animals. And, when given the choice, I'll eat meat that's as 'torture free' as I can find.

I don't think that intelligence is relevant if they have the same capacity for pain.

EDIT: Anyway, I'm not trying to single anyone out, I just think it's surreal for a culture which slaughters billions of animals yearly to be dismayed over 850 dolphins.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Humans are omnivores. It is that simple. While vegetarians should certainly have the right to not eat any sort of animal protein if they so desire, they can hardly criticize others for their own different eating habits.

That said, I would certainly agree that any sort of slaughter of livestock should be done as painlessly as possible.

 

[BenitoChavez]

Meat is eaten for pleasure, it isn't a necessary part of the human diet. It also entails hurting and killing animals. If it's wrong to hurt an animal for pleasure then it's wrong to eat an animal for pleasure.

Its an Ad hominem fallacy. Whether he is/is not a vegetarian is irrelevant to the validity of the argument he is making.

 

[de Maistre]

Its an Ad hominem attack. Whether he is/is not a vegetarian is irrelevant to the validity of the argument he is making.

I didn't say that he's wrong because he's not a vegetarian.

 

[El_Machinae]

I don't think that intelligence is relevant if they have the same capacity for pain.

In a lot of ways, you're correct. But, I'm distinguishing between killing and pain. I'm with you (like, 99% of the way) that 'causing pain' is wrong, regardless of the intelligence level. That's what would make it wrong to torture an animal to death, merely for the pleasure of eating it. But, when it comes to killing, 'sapience' is what matters.

 

[de Maistre]

In a lot of ways, you're correct. But, I'm distinguishing between killing an pain. I'm with you (like, 99% of the way) that 'causing pain' is wrong, regardless of the intelligence level. That's what would make it wrong to torture an animal to death, merely for the pleasure of eating it. But, when it comes to killing, 'sapience' is what matters.

Ok yeah, we're in agreement there.

 

[peter grimes]

Does it honestly change the calculus on a fundamental level? The Faroese don't kill really much at all in the grand scheme of things. Its already well recorded that what they kill annually is negligible to the population.

Yes, I think it really does change it, since the crux of your objection to banning this behavior is that it's "cultural imperlialism". Seems obvious to me that the only thread of culture that's come down through the ages is the inhumane slaughter of cetaceans. But so much of culture is about the *how*, rather than the *what*. In this case, you're arguing to preserve the *what*. I disagree that the cultural value of the what outweighs the lives of some animals.

This isn't needless suffering - this isn't even something people should be ashamed about. Destruction of cultural integrity on the other hand regularly weakens both the stability and prosperity of a society. I just don't understand how people can support such Eurocentric cultural imperialism though, there have to be limits to what people push against.

You're really only seeing this through a cultural imperialism lens, that's interesting. It's a bizarre thought to me that *not killing* hundreds of whales every year would somehow lead to the disintegration of their cultural integrity, and therefore the stability and prosperity of their society.

In fact, I think that's an asinine claim.

 

[Gucumatz]

Why not? Why do humans get the exception?

edit: let's admit that I agree that it's 'okay' to kill a sapient to 'save' a human. When it comes to life and death of people, I get it


Why should we? Your set-up indicates that any human pleasure is worth any amount of animal suffering. Clearly there's no 'maximum' for how much suffering we're "allowed" to cause (because the setup above is pretty horrific). Is there some ratio of 'human pleasure vs. animal suffering' that's acceptable to you? May I slap a dog if I really enjoy it? How about if I kinda enjoy it? How about if I come from a dog-slapping culture?

Whatever extent of suffering/death of animals should be decided by the society in question. If you accept that its ok to kill a sapient to save a human, then you accept there IS an acceptable ratio of human survival vs animal suffering. Different societies have different levels of acceptability.

So for your 3 questions: I'd think you were jerk for slapping a dog needlessly if you didn't come from a dog-slapping society. But if you came from a Dog-slapping society, I certainly would protect your cultural right to do so. Different societies have different ways of thinking about ideas like religion, culture, etc. It is immoral to try and enforce your system of beliefs on a foreign culture if they don't violate accepted law.
========

As for BenitoChavez - Yea the Faroese are European, but on the fringe of the European world. You have seen people complain about fringe regions of European cultures before [IE Sami castration of reindeer practices] simply because its different. But its a Western imperialist thinking that has been raised on many cultural issues. Westerners have tried to attack Muslims and Jews in regards to Halal and Kosher cultural practices, Faroese and Pacific Islanders about dolphin and whaling practices, and natives across the world in regards to ideas that the west considers uncivilized. It is cultural imperialism at its very definition

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm also okay with killing a human to save a human, in certain circumstances. This doesn't mean I should respect other cultures that have an easier time with the idea.