OUTRAGE OVER WHALING ... #2 <cont>

@msolga,

I acknowledge my mistake. Mostly I was trying to point out his absurd claim that these are Australia's territorial waters. They are not.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

I haven't time to respond now, George. It's 6:47 am & I'm running around getting ready to go to work. Sorry.

1 Reply

@msolga,

...and on my current timezone it's almost bedtime, so I can post; btw, Prof. Singer of Princeton is the world's leading bioethicist:

Quote:

Whales cannot be humanely killed"they are too large, and even with an explosive harpoon, it is difficult to hit the whale in the right spot. Moreover, whalers do not want to use a large amount of explosive, because that would blow the whale to pieces, while the whole point is to recover valuable oil or flesh. So harpooned whales typically die slowly and painfully. Causing suffering to innocent beings without an extremely weighty reason for doing so is wrong. If there were some life-or-death need that humans could meet only by killing whales, perhaps the ethical case against it could be countered. But there is no essential human need that requires us to kill whales. Everything we get from whales can be obtained without cruelty elsewhere. Thus, whaling is unethical. "....the real possibility that we are dealing with a creature which has a remarkably developed brain and a high degree of intelligence."....

3 Replies

@High Seas,

PS sorry forgot link to Prof. Singer's comment on whaling - noteworthy is fact link is to Japan Times, a highly respected Japanese publication:
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20080117a1.html
Finally this is a map of the Indian Ocean and Southern Ocean whale sanctuaries as per IWC- Australia isn't claiming all those waters as its own, btw!
http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/images/sanctuaries.jpg

0 Replies

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

...and on my current timezone it's almost bedtime, so I can post; btw, Prof. Singer of Princeton is the world's leading bioethicist:

Actually he styles himself as a "utilitarian atheist philosopher". Thomas has stimulated me to read some of his stuff. I find him and his work to be overly self-important and, frankly, laughable. He condemns the inflicting of suffering and death on all creatures, human and otherwise. OK so far. However he rationalizes choosing the death of a mouse over that of a man (his illustration) by noting that "mice have know knowledge of the future, and therefore no expectation of a future", thus they can be killed in preference to a man. (Thus the only transcendent relative value of human life is our supposed greater expectation of a future.) While, judged as a passing rationalization to relieve one of a moment's chagrin for killing a mouse this may be OK, it doesn't pass muster when subject to any serious critical thought. In the first place mice are known to learn from maze experiences - thus they have a memory of a past and a concept of future rewards. More importantly, raising this sort of nonsense to the level of philosophy is laughably

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

I think George that utilitarian atheist philosophers have a bit of a problem, which does make them a bit laughable, in that nobody knows what they are for.

Everybody knows what a garbage man is for and a helmsman on a boat but can you tell me what a utilitarian atheist philosopher is for? Utility I suppose is the ideal but how it turns out in practice is anybody's guess. Perhaps it is a person who goes around promoting utilitarian atheist philosophy. Selling vibrators to defrocked nuns maybe.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Midnight and exhaustion are closing in on me fast, so I'll be brief and not quite as diplomatic as I've tried to be with you and others who cannot see the issue here: the issue is torture, and torture of any living creature which can feel pain is by definition (anybody's, not just Prof. Singer's) wrong.

See if you can talk to anyone from the Bush family any time soon - they were all appalled at Cheney's nauseating stand on torture - a.k.a. "it works" - if it did, why did Mohammed what's his name, the sheikh responsible for planning 9/11 have to get waterboarded 183 (one-hundred-and-eighty-three) times, surely 182 times would have sufficed?! If it's gratuitous at best for this sheikh it follows logically that generally NO good can come of torturing innocent creatures, and it doesn't matter if it's a mouse - your example - or any other animal, of even the most minute intelligence, as long as the creature can feel pain. Is it possible you've never heard of criminology - ALL, barring none, mass murderers started out in life by torturing creatures smaller than themselves, as in pulling legs off flies. You don't have to like insects to see how that's an early warning signal of sociopathology.

To sum up: nobody questions the overriding interest of the US in preserving and expanding freedom of sea and air lanes - but murdering our intelligent relatives in the high seas cannot be the right way to go: even abstracting from ALL other considerations keep in mind that Vox Populi, Vox Dei, is an axiom that has never once turned out to be wrong. And you can't question that Vox Populi in the US, Canada, Britain, New Zealand, even isolated voices in Norway and Japan, is overwhelmingly in support of banning whaling forever. We miss listening to vox populi at our peril. Goodnight.

2 Replies

@High Seas,

It is awful HS, I agree. You are to be commended for doing your bit to make us less awful.

0 Replies

@High Seas,

I have posted Peter singer's quote, or part of it, here before, High Seas. It is one of the most convincing anti-whaling arguments (for me personally).

1 Reply

@High Seas,

I don't confuse the voice of a highly pretentious oxford educated Australian expat professor at Princeton and self-appointed utilitarian moralist who spouts nonsense pretending it is philosophy with the 'vox populi'.

3 Replies

@georgeob1,

Yeah, OK, George. Neutral

That's your view. Got it.

I'm not at all surprised.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

I don't confuse the voice of a highly pretentious oxford educated Australian expat professor at Princeton and self-appointed utilitarian moralist who spouts nonsense pretending it is philosophy with the 'vox populi'.

This

Quote:

highly pretentious oxford educated Australian expat professor at Princeton and self-appointed utilitarian moralist who spouts nonsense pretending it is philosophy

could have been said much more simply.

"I don't agree with him".

The rest is just random noise.

I would be interested to see your analysis and refutations of his arguments.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Neither do I. Anyway, Singer doesn't claim a one-to-one correspondence between his views and the "voice of the people" on any topic. It's my personal assessment that there's significant overlap between his views on whaling and the views of the peoples of all these several countries, but short of holding an actual vote no proof is possible.

0 Replies

@msolga,

More evidence - at least of the US view, and an insight into the Japanese view - from yesterday's Oscar awards ceremony, of "best documentary" prize:

Quote:

"But killing dolphins is actually legal in Japan."
"Yes, but let’s not forget that the place in question here is a national park. They’re killing the wildlife in a national park. They don’t have jurisdiction there. They’re just a bunch of thugs. As for the broader issue of legality: One percent of the Japanese population eats whale meat, and a very small percentage of that one percent eats dolphin or even knows that people eat dolphin."

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2009/01/the_coves_richard_obarry_on_se.html

http://images.nymag.com/images/2/daily/2009/01/20090116_cove_560x300.jpg

0 Replies

@dlowan,

dlowan wrote:

.... could have been said much more simply.

"I don't agree with him".

The rest is just random noise.

I would be interested to see your analysis and refutations of his arguments.

Not random and not noise at all. That's just your opinion (You too could have just written "I disagree".)

I provided a very compact C.V. and identification of the person in question, and expressed my opinion of both his work and its lack of connection to the reference made by High Seas - something she quickly acknowledged above.

I willing to discuss it (Thomas got me interested in him in another thread), but I suspect that Molga would object if we do it on this thread about killing whales.

3 Replies

@georgeob1,

George--I did a bit on Mr Singer on the "Atheists-your life is pointless" thread.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

I provided a very compact C.V. and identification of the person in question, and expressed my opinion of both his work and its lack of connection to the reference made by High Seas - something she quickly acknowledged above.

I willing to discuss it (Thomas got me interested in him in another thread), but I suspect that Molga would object if we do it on this thread about killing whales.

You are absolutely correct, George. This is a thread about whales. I certainly would not welcome a (yet further) digression into Perter Singer's character, or motives, or whatever you were alluding to in your comments about him above.

I would be much more interested in you responding to Deb's request, which was to see your analysis & refutation of Peter Singer's arguments.

Quote:

Whales cannot be humanely killed"they are too large, and even with an explosive harpoon, it is difficult to hit the whale in the right spot. Moreover, whalers do not want to use a large amount of explosive, because that would blow the whale to pieces, while the whole point is to recover valuable oil or flesh. So harpooned whales typically die slowly and painfully. Causing suffering to innocent beings without an extremely weighty reason for doing so is wrong. If there were some life-or-death need that humans could meet only by killing whales, perhaps the ethical case against it could be countered. But there is no essential human need that requires us to kill whales. Everything we get from whales can be obtained without cruelty elsewhere. Thus, whaling is unethical. "....the real possibility that we are dealing with a creature which has a remarkably developed brain and a high degree of intelligence."....

What do you have to say in response?

As you say & we all know, this is a thread about whales. You know, I can't recall you actually addressing the specific concerns of the anti-whaling folk here at all. Like the sustainability arguments, the conservation concerns & now, the animal welfare & ethics concerns.

We've spent quite a bit of time here addressing your particular special concerns here, particularly treaties. And your arguments for (seemingly) unlimited freedom for commercial interests to "harvest" the oceans for their own ends.

I think it would be reciprocally polite for you to respond to Deb's questions of you.

I am not remotely interested in a character assassination of Peter Singer. I am interested in what he has had to say on this issue. And I await your response to what he has said.

Let's stay on topic here.

1 Reply

@msolga,

Msolga, I believe you are attempting to exercise rights you don't posess in unduly restricting the discorse here.

You have demanded that I address exactly and only the statement of Prof. Singer that you posted. That is not rationally possible. Singer has insisted that it is "wrong" for humans to kill whales or other large creatures absent a "life and death" reason for them to do so. He does not specify what he means by "wrong". Does he mean legally wrong? Clearly he does not, because the killing of whales in the Antarctic sea by the Japanese does not violate any applicable or binding law. Does he mean morally wrong? If so I have a very hard time seeing any consistency in his argument or understanding the basic principles on which it is based. In other statements he condones the euthanasia of aged or disabled humans and even infants whose neurotic parents may be fearful of raising. Indeed he very clearly denys the existence of any transcendental value to human life at all. In these circumstances I find it very strange that he appears to to posit such transcendental value to whales. In short, I find his statement to be specious and insubstantial - not persuasive at all. Mostly I am astounded that so many credulous folk give this stuff so much attention.

You have chided me for not joining your claques in damning the Japanese on sustainability and like issues. I was clear that I don't know enough about the truth of these issues to have an informed opinion, but that I was willing to accept the opinions of those who claim to know at face value if they can demonstrate at least a prima face case. I do know something about applicable maratime law, and I believe I added significant elements to your dialogue that had previously been entirely missing. I believe that merits more than the pained tolerance you expressed. The fact is that the Japanese are abiding by the letter of the agreement they and the Australian government signed. While you may not approve of this, you don't have the ability or power to force the Japanese to change their behavior - and so far it appears, neither does Mr Rudd.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

You think?

Still be interested to see you address any of his arguments.

1 Reply

@dlowan,

I did. I clearly rejected the apparent (but not explicitly stated) foundation for them, start to finish.

Let me ask you a question. If the Japanese were to start using one of those quick acting sedatives on their harpoons, demonstrably rendering the whale unconscious within (say) a minute, would you then consider Singers objections satisfied?

If so would you abandon your objections to the harvesting of whales?

1 Reply

OUTRAGE OVER WHALING ... #2 <cont>

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know