The more recent arguments against whaling are said to belong in the category of ethical arguments. Can ethics be employed as an antidote to science when scientific results provide unwanted conclusions?
Demands on Consistency
In this article, the relationship between ethics and morals will first and foremost
refer to demands on consistency and logic. If it is wrong to steal a car, it must also
be wrong to steal a motorbike. But even though it is an accepted ethical principle
not to steal, there may be situations where this principle might be ignored and
overruled by other ethical principles. For example, in a situation where one is
forced to steal a vehicle in order to report a serious accident. Even so, it is
extremely difficult to imagine situations where it would be ethically acceptable to
steal a motorbike, yet wrong to steal a car.
Another, rather obvious demand pertaining to ethical argumentation is that in situations where this argumentation is based on facts, then these must actually be facts, i.e. correct and well-documented. An ethical justification for the discrimination of women based on the "fact" that women are less intelligent than men, would for instance, not meet such a demand.
Six Categories of Ethical Arguments
In the whaling dispute we encounter various ethical arguments in favour of a ban
on whaling. We can divide them into six categories.
Extinction
Both whalers and their opponents agree that making species extinct is ethically
unjustifiable. Today, even though there is still considerable dispute regarding
what control systems and regulations are necessary, the threat of extinction is no
longer the pivotal topic of the whaling issue.
In his essay "Beyond Whale Species Survival" (Sonar, 1989), Robbins Barstow, former executive director of the US-based Cetacean Society International, wrote: "If harvesting whales is acceptable, there can be little doubt now that at least some species of whales in the future can sustain a limited, strictly regulated take, without threatening species survival. So therefore the argument against killing whales can no longer be based on preventing extinction. A different rationale is required."
The most important protectionist nations at the International Whaling Commission have also turned their argumentation away from the threat of extinction. In their opening statement at the 1994 IWC meeting, the New Zealanders said that they will work to maintain the moratorium on commercial whaling because "it reflects the current reality of world opinion." Australia stated that whaling is "no longer necessary" and that it involves "an unacceptable level of cruelty" The 1993 US opening statement justified the new US whaling policy involving total opposition to all commercial whaling, by referring to US public opinion.
A number of organisations under the Save-the-Whale umbrella have claimed that threats towards the marine environment are so grave today that whaling cannot be justified. Whaling will increase the pressure on stocks and lead to an increased threat of extinction. Such threats to the environment are e.g. chemical pollution and the "hole" in the ozone layer. However, the 1994 IWC Scientific Committee report - based on simulation tests involving scenarios with varying degrees of environmental degradation - ascertains that the new quota calculation model "is robust to a wide range of uncertainty." In circumstances involving real environmental threats, whaling will have minimal effect on the development of whale stocks. Justin Cooke, creator of the quota calculation model, stated that "if the environmental effects are severe, then even reducing catches to zero would do little to mitigate them."
Arguing for a total ban on whaling on the grounds of the "hole" in the ozone layer or a potential greenhouse effect is stretching the safety-first principle to the verge of parody. Using this principle in such a way would bring most human activity to an immediate halt.
Environmental Impact
An article in "Scientific American" (August 1994) suggests that the carcasses of
whales may be one of the major sources of nutrition for deep sea organisms, and
that whaling for this reason is an unacceptable violation of the marine ecosystem.
All harvesting of natural resources obviously has some impact on the ecosystem
involved. The question is, which consequences are acceptable, and to what degree
the productive capacity of the ecosystem is reduced.
Again, there is widespread consensus on the fact that non-sustainable harvesting is unacceptable. Any use of renewable resources is sustainable as long as it does not reduce the future possibility of harvesting the resource's surplus. In other words, the harvest has to be confined within the resource's capacity for renewal. There is no evidence to suggest that a sustainable harvest of whales will have an effect on the ecosystem that in principle is any different to e.g. a sustainable fishery or the sustainable hunt of deer.
Humane Killing
The discussion on humane killing is the topic of another article in this booklet, so
here we might just point out the demand for consistency, i.e. the ethical issues in
conjunction with the killing of whales must be seen in context with the killing of
other wild animals, like the moose for example. The whale protectionists claim
that whaling causes the animal unacceptable suffering. I fear that a comparative
study on these grounds would lead to a ban on all hunting if the same criteria
were to be applied. The next question would then be whether meat production in
industrial farming involves just as much suffering, and in that case that it is
unethical to produce meat...and to eat it.
Not Necessary
Argument No.4 raises the same type of problem. In a letter from WWF Sweden to
the Swedish Minister of the Environment it says "Today, the only commercial
whale product is whale meat which is sold as a luxury product to one solitary
market, the Japanese. Today, commercial whaling is no longer necessary to
satisfy basic human needs, even though this has earlier been the case." Firstly, the
premises for this statement are not correct. The Norwegian minke whalers had -
and hopefully will still have in the future - a substantial home market. The major
part of the meat has always been sold on this market, and the consumption of
whale meat is particularly high in the coastal areas where whaling takes place.
This also applies to Japanese coastal minke whaling. In Norway whale meat has
never been a luxury product. Prices have been on the same level as those of other
types of meat.
So to the question of needs. Is it possible to explain why there should be less need for whale meat than for pork, beef, lamb, chicken, reindeer etc? Would it be ethically commendable of the Norwegian coastal population to renounce a local resource like the minke whale and import pork from other areas instead? From an environmental viewpoint there is no other type of meat production that is so "pure" and that requires the use of so little fossil fuel as minke whaling. Any definition regarding what kinds of meat there is a need for, will always be a purely subjective assessment. People in the northern coastal communities would have no problem in saying that there was no need for turkey, there being no traditions here involving the consumption of turkey. The English would hardly agree.
It is true that whale meat of best quality fetches a high price on the Japanese market. This proves that the meat is in great demand - that there is a need for it. Is saddle of reindeer or first class steak an immoral product because it is expensive?
Whaling provides jobs in coastal communities where there is often little or no alternative work. For those making a living from whaling it is hard to understand that other people can define their livelihood as "unnecessary".
The Ethical Choice
Perhaps it might be relevant to pose the general question as to whether meat
production is necessary at all, and whether eating meat is ethically justifiable. On
the one hand, because animals are hereby forced to undergo suffering which
might be termed unnecessary, but also because the corn that the animals eat, loses
up to eighty percent of its nutritional value - and requires substantial energy
consumption - on its way through the animal's stomach until it ends up as meat
in the supermarket's freezer. This corn could have been used to fight starvation.
The latter point does not apply to whale and seal meat. This is in part due to the
fact that seals, and the larger baleen whales in particular, have a nutritional basis
which normally would not be of benefit to Man if it wasn't processed by the
animals. The same thing applies to animals that eat grass. People living in areas
where corn cannot be cultivated are dependent on the nutrition from inedible
plants being processed by animals in to meat. They have no choice.
As far as the suffering of animals is concerned, the ethical choice is between vegetarian food and meat. But when it comes to the responsibility of feeding the growing population of the world, while at the same time safeguarding the invaluable soil, the choice stands between, on the one hand vegetarian food, fish and the meat produced from marine mammals and land animals grazing on areas that are only suitable for cultivating grass, or, on the other hand, meat produced in areas that could have been used for producing vegetarian food for human consumption.
The preliminary text of the UN's Environmental Conference in Brazil, emphasises the responsibility of coastal states to develop and increase the long-term benefits of living marine resources in order to meet the world population's growing need for food, and the social and economic needs of the coastal population.
Animal Rights
Argument No. 5 - whales have an absolute right to live - can be ethically justified
in two different ways. The first one is an animal rights standpoint which doesn't
place whales in a privileged position in relation to other animals. Tom Regan, the
philosopher, is perhaps the most important theorist behind the animal rights
ideology. He claims that animal rights must be respected in the same way as those
of Man and that animals have an absolute right to live. He was among the first to
make use of the concept of "speciesism" as a parallel to racism and defined as
"bias towards the members of one's own species and against other species".
Whale Rights
The other justification for the whale's right to live is a "whale rights standpoint".
Whales are ascribed a higher status than other animals and are placed in a
category of their own as being "Man's equal in the sea". The arguments for such a
status are first and foremost the whales' large brains and resulting high
intelligence.
But not all whales have big brains, not when measured in absolute terms nor in relation to their body volume. The pilot whale for instance, has a strikingly small brain. This applies to the finwhale, too. It weighs eighteen times more than an elephant, but has a smaller brain.
Furthermore, it must be pointed out that there is no proven connection between brain size and intelligence. Nor is there anything about the whales' social structure or behaviour to indicate that they are endowed with higher intelligence than other animals. It has also been claimed that whales have a complicated brain structure that is very similar to that of Man. This is simply not true: "In many respects, then, the cetacean brains are actually quite primitive. It retains all the structures found in primitive mammals, such as hedgehogs and bats. It shows none of the structural differences from area to area typical of advanced brains like those of primates." (Margareth Klinowska, member of the IUCN Species Survival Commission Cetacean Specialist Group, New Scientist 29th October 1988)
And so we are back to science. The advocates of the establishment of a separate ethical code governing relationships between Man and whales, know what demands must be met to legitimate an ethical code and are attempting to put together rational, logical argumentation for placing whales in an ethical category of their own, elevated above the animal kingdom. Argumentation that can be tested using scientific methods. So far this project has not been successful. They haven't got any further than saying that it can't be refuted that whales have a consciousness along the same lines as Man: "We conclude therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that whales are aware of their lives and of their interests, simply because that seems to be the most parsimonious conclusion". (Roger Payne, Senior Scientist of the WWF in the article "Is Whaling Justifiable on Ethical and Moral Grounds?")
Obviously, the same thing can be said of all other animals. It is a matter of persuasion, of belief. Even so, the view that whales are "uniquely special", has become the cornerstone of the "Save the Whale Movement"'s new argumentation, since the "preventing species extinction" argument can no longer thwart a limited, regulated harvest of certain species. It is the conviction that whales are distinctly intelligent, socially unique and linguistically gifted that comprises the core of demands for a ban on the killing of whales. "As more and more people worldwide have become aware of the remarkable qualities of whales, doubts over the ethics of killing whales for commercial profit have increased....Not killing whales is evolving as the norm among the nations of the world", it says in a letter from WWF to the Icelandic authorities.
As mentioned earlier, the number of people who share a standpoint is by no means a criterion for ethical validity. Besides, the whole basis of this argumentation is unsound. That which is put forward as fact - the whale's unique qualities - is not fact. Saying that whales are unique in a different way to any other animals is a highly subjective assessment.
The Whale as a Symbol
So now over to argument No.6, and to another type of ethical argument that does
not pertain to the relationship between whaler and whale, but to that of the
whaler and those people who have adopted the whale as a symbol. "More than
any other form of non-human life, whales have come to symbolize the concern
for the environment....There is a wide support for not killing whales because
they are such a special symbol of sharing the earth", claims Robbins Barstow,
executive director of the Cetacean Society International. And in a debate in the
newspapers, a well-known Norwegian environmentalist and animal friend wrote
that "Respect for other people's symbols is a weighty argument in the discussion
of whaling and ethics".
Whales don't know that they are symbols. Nor do they know that this symbol has become a commodity, and that environmentalist organizations like the WWF, "sell" whales to business concerns that are in need of green surface treatment. Reality is transformed into symbols and then, next time around, they relate to symbols instead of to reality. Concern for the environment, which was the starting point, is in the process of being replaced by concern for the whale as a symbol.
The appeal of the whale as a symbol has not come about by itself. The image of the whale as being intelligent, peaceful, sociable and musical - an idealistic version of Man in the ocean - has been created by a determined marketing effort on the part of the whale protectionist organizations. The symbolic power of the whale is not propelled first and foremost by biological facts about the whales, but by carefully constructed images.
As we have seen, it has not been possible to find any ethical justification for establishing separate norms to govern our relationship with the whales. This is because it is in no way possible to substantiate the notion that whales have qualities which warrant placing them in a category of their own, outside the animal kingdom. There are, however, still those who believe that whales constitute such a category. In this way, these people's beliefs are turned into the ethical argument that whalers should respect a norm which cannot be ethically justified!
Grave Consequences
The whale protectionists are directly interfering in the lives of other people when
they put forward demands for a ban on whaling in respect for their own symbols.
Such intervention has very grave consequences. The whalers lose their livelihood,
their social identity, and are perhaps forced to sell their boats and leave their
homes. In the minke whaling trade, the boats are small, family businesses where
father, sons and brothers work together. This relationship is broken up. The
injured parties are the marginal, coastal communities where the boats belong.
Those demanding a total ban on whaling by arguing for "respect for symbols"
must consider whether they can find ethical justification for such intervention in
other people's lives and communities. The two Human Rights covenants of 1966
establish the universal right to benefit from natural resources and to earn a
livelihood.
People with differing ethical norms live side by side in our pluralistic societies. Meat eaters sit at the same table as vegetarians. Muslims work together with Christians. Such coexistence is built on tolerance, which is the second basic principle for ethical behaviour. One must respect the right of other people to believe in different things, to be different, and to act differently - as long as they don't harm anyone. This principle is perhaps even more fundamental to good relationships between different societies and different cultures, than it is to those between individuals.
In order to overrule the principles of tolerance, the right to harvest natural resources and the right to earn one's livelihood, the whale protectionists will have to produce a major ethical principle in favour of their right to force a ban on killing whales upon others. Arguments demanding respect for their symbols are by no means important enough.
The ethical arguments on the part of the Save-the-Whale movement are not capable of meeting the basic demands made on ethical justification, i.e. demands on consistency, logic and the demand that facts actually are facts. It is unethical to force a ban on whaling upon others by threatening their society's economy, especially when such a ban is founded on a faltering ethical basis.