Faroese Whaling Controversy

[EvenStranger]

Are we sure that greater intelligence leads to greater suffering? Is suffering even a thing if we're all just pieces of meat at the end of the day? I can't really decide. We'd have to understand self-awareness completely to even approach the issue objectively.

How do we know that regular garden slugs don't suffer even more than humans/whales? I don't see how we can.

 

[AnimuX]

I would hardly classify scientific articles from Fox News and the Daily Telegraph as legitimate evidence, you'd do better to link to the studies themselves - is enough to support your obviously spurious claim.

That's just lazy. Fox and Telegraph merely printed a story that was widely reported at the time making reference to the claims of scientists which I have also referred to in my posts.

There is not going to be a simple list of creatures with numbers attached indicating higher intelligence that places 'Globicephala melas' at #2 with the rest of the whales listed in succession and 'Sus scrofa domesticus' at #120 below them to satisfy this demand.

As previously mentioned, I'm not 'claiming' anything. The claims have been made by scientists, some of whom have called for special protections for cetaceans as 'non-human persons'. Their claims are based on behavioral and anatomical study.

 

[AnimuX]

How do we know that regular garden slugs don't suffer even more than humans/whales? I don't see how we can.

If memory serves, this is often evaluated by the similarity of animal brains and nervous systems, or reactions to painful stimuli, to humans.

Intelligence in of itself does not determine whether a creature should be subjected to cruel or brutal treatment.

 

[Thedrin]

That's just lazy. Fox and Telegraph merely printed a story that was widely reported at the time making reference to the claims of scientists which I have also referred to in my posts.

There is not going to be a simple list of creatures with numbers attached indicating higher intelligence that places 'Globicephala melas' at #2 with the rest of the whales listed in succession and 'Sus scrofa domesticus' at #120 below them to satisfy this demand.

As previously mentioned, I'm not 'claiming' anything. The claims have been made by scientists, some of whom have called for special protections for cetaceans as 'non-human persons'. Their claims are based on behavioral and anatomical study.

Given the terrible standards of science reporting in the main stream media, Contre and Lord Baals' request is neither unreasonable nor lazy.

Edit: Also Lord Baal's main point (also brought up by Contre, I believe) is a good one. Requesting that a bill of rights be drawn up for all cetaceans is like requesting that a bill of rights be drawn up for all primates. In order for this request to be taken seriously you have to be able to show that all cetaceans are deserving of it (since not all primates are).

 

[NickyJ]

And noooooooooow, back on topic:

Let the Faroese do what they do. It's their way of life, and it doesn't violate any laws.

And really, who are we to tell them that their work has to be stopped because a minority of people that probably never knew the Faroese even existed don't like to kill certain types of animals?

 

[Thedrin]

And noooooooooow, back on topic:

Let the Faroese do what they do. It's their way of life, and it doesn't violate any laws.

And really, who are we to tell them that their work has to be stopped because a minority of people that probably never knew the Faroese even existed don't like to kill certain types of animals?

Whaling isn't any part of their livelihood. No whales were killed in 2008, for example. A comparison to bull fighting might be apt. The tradition goes back centuries. It may once have been essential, but it's now a social event for the community which is part of their cultural heritage. They would be as prosperous without it.

 

[Gucumatz]

Sure, but it should be up to their confederation, their governance, their people to decide on their culture - not anyone else's discretion.

When they day comes that they want to change their whaling, fine. Until then, while they certainly could subsist without it - its a deserved part of their heritage

 

[Thedrin]

There may be reasons why it's a bad thing, such as the health risks, but I'm not advocating for a cessation of whaling in the Faroes, Gugumatz. But the notion that whaling is an economic activity on the islands is false and that is the reason for my last post.

 

[Glassfan]

They aren't just white, they're white.

There needs to be a new category for whiteness of this magnitude.

Well, who cares what Hobbits eat?

Humans, on the other hand, are biological animals that must consume other life-forms to exist. Our diet includes meat - flesh from other animals.

On the issue of cruelty, most predators do not make clean kills, they often drag down their prey and "kill" by biting pieces off of it until it loses consciousness. Are lions cruel? Spiders? Predation is the norm in nature, and cannot be concieved of as cruel or unusual. Cruelty is a human emotional artifact, most often "felt" by individuals not actually responsible for food-provisioning.

Spoiler :

Male Lion Kills Baby Buffalo

I thought Lord Baal's point about sentient vs sapient was spot-on. One could argue that virtually all life is sentient, which if a disqualifier, would eliminate our diet completely. Sapience is a more complex question.

IMO, if the Hobbits want and can hunt, they ought not to be interfered with unless they actually pose an extinction threat to the pilot whales.

 

[Angst]

Plants aren't sentient.

 

[Glassfan]

Plants aren't sentient.

Many believe they are.

 

[ArneHD]

Many believe they are.

Who believes they are?

 

[Glassfan]

There's this

And these guys

 

[Angst]

So chemical reactions accord for sentience now?

I thought it required some sort of brain capacity.

 

[EvenStranger]

I don't understand how people explain the need for empathy with animals in a materialistic universe. If someone is spiritual/religious I'll allow it, but hard materialists really can't explain why we should extend empathy outside of our species ( or, more explosively, our nation/culture/family/etc. ) We can promote biodiversity for our own amusement and have empathy with our pets ( that's what they're for, after all ) but I just can't see how a hard materialist can get worked up about the suffering of an anonymous animal half a world away.

I'm agnostic so I'm not entirely dismissive of non-materialist perspectives, but materialist morality is very difficult to nail down in cases like this IMO.

 

[Gucumatz]

So chemical reactions accord for sentience now?

I thought it required some sort of brain capacity.

Many believe so and that its more complex than you state actually and its a growing trend to prove the sentience of plants. I wouldn't be surprised within 10 years that it will be no longer controversial to say that plants have a degree of sentience too

 

[EvenStranger]

That will be a very, very awkward day for self-righteous vegans everywhere.

Ah well, we can always go deeper into utopian madness.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

So chemical reactions accord for sentience now?

I thought it required some sort of brain capacity.

It does for animals. We're still learning about plants.

I don't understand how people explain the need for empathy with animals in a materialistic universe. If someone is spiritual/religious I'll allow it, but hard materialists really can't explain why we should extend empathy outside of our species ( or, more explosively, our nation/culture/family/etc. ) We can promote biodiversity for our own amusement and have empathy with our pets ( that's what they're for, after all ) but I just can't see how a hard materialist can get worked up about the suffering of an anonymous animal half a world away.

I'm agnostic so I'm not entirely dismissive of non-materialist perspectives, but materialist morality is very difficult to nail down in cases like this IMO.

I'm atheist, and I cannot imagine living my life without empathy for other animals, for plants, etc.

Yes, I eat meat. That doesn't mean I want the food animals to suffer needlessly. And I have literally hugged trees. Back when I used to have my own house and a yard with fruit trees, I'd pat the trees on the trunk every fall, thank them for all their hard work that year in producing fruit for me and food/shelter for the birds and squirrels, and wish them a good winter's sleep.

Isn't another word for people incapable of feeling empathy "sociopath"?

 

[EvenStranger]

Isn't another word for people incapable of feeling empathy "sociopath"?

A sociopath is someone without empathy. I'm talking about something entirely different.

I'm saying that it can be argued that I shouldn't overindulge in empathy in cases where it's senseless. I feel a twinge of empathy when I watch someone shoot an animal in a hunt, but I override that empathy because I consider it misapplied. After all, an animal shot in a hunt actually suffers a lot less than most of the meat we eat.

I also don't think it's proper stop fruitful animal research due to excessive empathy. Empathy can actually be a destructive emotion when it is taken too far, just like anything else.

 

[Glassfan]

I was just reading EvenStranger's link, and it occurs to me that (if I understand evolution correctly) fruit is intended to be eaten by animals. It's a symbiotic relationship, where the plant offers nutrition to the animal (left-handed sugars), and in return gets it's seed (undigestible right-handed sugars) transported and planted with a bit of fertilizer (snicker).

Likewise, carnivores are intended to eat herbivores. By especially predating the old, the weak or the sick, carnivores effectively improve the herbivore herd, in return for nutrition.

On the other hand, man is no longer following nature (is he?) but rather lives in his culture and technology. Those of us who live in the modern world have developed farms and ranches to supply our food. But those who still live in the pre-modern world must still hunt and gather. Folks like the Faroese Islanders are in a transitional state, and who are we to force them into the modern world? They must be allowed their own rate of progress.

Our modern world is changing rapidly and dramatically, and moral philosphy and ethics have a hard time keeping up with technological advancement. So naturally (sic) there's a certain degree of misunderstanding and disagreement. Reasonable people may disagree.