If the supporters of whaling don't try to respond to the ethical arguments, they themselves may soon appear to be the ones who are in contempt of what is right and wrong. Therefore, neither side participating in the international discussion on whaling can afford to ignore ethical considerations. In the following paper, I will discuss one of the most influential ethical arguments against whaling which in essence, is the argument that it is wrong to catch whales because whales have rights. Other arguments are discussed in a longer paper (Sandøe, 1993) on which the present paper is based.
Whale Rights
According to some whaling opponents whales have rights equivalent to those of
human rights, and this is why whaling must be banned.
The case for a ban on whaling on the basis of whale rights has been put forward most forcefully by the American philosopher Tom Regan (Regan 1982, Regan 1984 and Jamieson & Regan,1985). One essential points the case, has also been inspired by the Australian philosopher, Peter Singer, whose book, Animal Liberation (1975 & 1990; see also Singer,1978) has been one of the most important sources of inspiration for the modern animal rights movement.
The case in question also plays an important role in an influential article written by two American jurists, Anthony D'Amato and Sudhir K. Chopra (1991 ). The idea of their article is to show that the rights of whales should be acknowledged by international law. Their train of thought is far from lucid, but on the basis of one obvious interpretation, their juridic conclusion rests on the following, ethical argument:
The Case for Banning Whaling on the Grounds of Whale Rights
This case is based an the idea that human beings have a right not to be subjected
to suffering and a right to life. i.e. to not be killed.
Whales are obviously not human, but they are similar to humans in a number of ways. They are conscious beings that can experience pain and other suffering, and they have an interest in avoiding being killed. If one is to say that whales do not share the aforementioned two rights, one must, according to the argumentation, be able to put forward a relevant difference between Man and whale. This is completely analogous with the debate on women's or coloured people's rights. In certain societies people have been discriminated on the grounds of their sex or colour, but since one is unable to point out relevant differences between black and white, or man and woman, this type of discrimination is not ethically justifiable.
One might, of course, argue that whales are considerably less intelligent than normal human beings, but if one employs this argument as a justification for denying whales rights, then one must also deny the rights of the mentally handicapped, small children and senile senior citizens, as some of these people might be seen as less intelligent than normal whales. If one will maintain that even the least intelligent of human beings have the same rights as everybody else, then one cannot employ the criterion of intelligence as a basis for denying whales the aforementioned rights. Since it is not possible to procure a relevant difference between human beings and whales, one must, according to the argumentation, allow whales the right not to be subjected to suffering and the right to live. The concept of having a right must here be seen in conjunction with the concept of obligation: Having a right to live involves others having an obligation to refrain from killing you; and the same thing applies to the right not to be subjected to suffering. Whaling is in defiance of both of these obligations and should therefore, according to the above argumentation, be banned. Since we consider human rights as something universal that we can take the liberty of enforcing on other nations that do not share our ethics, nations that are supporters of whale rights might also take the liberty of putting great pressure on nations wishing to catch whales.
Counter Arguments
The above argumentation plays the ball back to those wishing to defend whaling.
In order to maintain their credibility, they must be able to point out one or more
flaws in this argumentation.
The simplest and most obvious way of doing this, is to put forward a relevant difference between human beings and whales that can justify the notion that whales, as opposed to human beings, cannot, in fact, have rights ascribed to them.
On closer consideration, many people will more than likely think that such a way of looking at the problem is rather too simplistic. Ascribing to whales the same right to life as we ascribe to human beings is going too far. On the other hand, inflicting unnecessary suffering on whales is also regarded as unacceptable.
The question is, then, whether it is possible to argue for an intermediate view, stating that whales in one sense have a right to avoid being subjected to suffering, but as opposed to human beings, they do not have a right to life.
The case for such an intermediate view might have its basis in the fact that whales resemble human beings on one decisive point, they feel pain and can suffer in other ways, too. Therefore, it is our obligation to ensure that our actions as far as possible do not subject whales to pain.
On the other hand, whales distinguish themselves from normal human beings by not having the same degree of self-consciousness. They do not plan their lives, but live, in one sense, in the present. If one kills a whale, one is therefore not violating the whale's plans for the rest of its life.
Another difference is that the killing of a whale does not affect the existence of those that survive in the same way as does the killing of a human being. Typically, and contrary to whales, human beings will grieve over their loss for a very long time. Furthermore, the killing of a human being may cause anxiety and insecurity in the community; whereas whales do not seem to worry about the fact that they one day might risk being harpooned.
The problem with this argumentation lies, of course, in accounting for why it is wrong to kill those human beings that do not have a particularly high degree of self-consciousness, and that do not fear death, e.g. people who are extremely mentally handicapped. One answer to this question might be that in one respect, killing the mentally retarded is regarded as wrong for the sake of normal human beings. Partly out of consideration for the person's family and relations, and partly because consistent respect for human life is necessary in order to avoid things getting out of hand. Many will no doubt feel that these reasons for asserting that the right to life applies to all human beings and not only those with well- developed intelligence, are inadequate. But as far as I can see, that is the price one has to pay i n order to provide an intellectually satisfactory answer as to what is the ethically relevant difference between whales and human beings.
The Intermediate View
The intermediate view then, is that we have an obligation not to subject whales to
unnecessary suffering, but that whales, as opposed to human beings, do not have
a right to life. The reason for such differential treatment is that whales do not
nearly have the same degree of self-consciousness and that they do not have such
a well-developed emotional life, as do human beings.
Even so, some whaling opponents will attempt to criticize this reason. They will claim that whales have high intelligence, self-consciousness, a well-developed emotional life, and are mutually joined by strong social bonds. I n that respect, they are on a level with chimpanzees, gorillas and other great apes.
In certain countries, great apes are indeed treated differently to other animals. This applies to chimpanzees, for instance, that are used in animal experiments. One research institution in the USA has even established a kind of pension fund for the chimpanzees that are used in experiments. The money from the fund is spent on ensuring that the animals, when no longer taking part in experiments, can continue to live a reasonably comfortable life until they die of natural causes. A number of these chimpanzee "pensioners" have been placed on uninhabited islands and given enough food to ensure that they can manage. Other animals used in experiments are put down when they are no longer of any use.
Special Animal
The idea, then, is that whales, like chimpanzees, are superior animals and
therefore have special rights. One special right might here be the right not to be
killed. Since they are superior animals that, similar to human beings, have a well-
developed self-consciousness, they will be able to appreciate life to a certain
extent. Other animals do not have the same conception of themselves as living
creatures, and consequently do not have the right to life. If it can be done without
the animal suffering, then, it is in order to kill these inferior animals with a view
to utilizing them in the production of food and clothing.
As a justification for the notion that whales are highly developed beings, it is often stated that they have very large, well developed brains, that they show a high degree of consideration for their congeners and in certain cases also for human beings, and that they possess a system of communications that resembles a true language.
The question as to what we actually mean by saying that an animal is highly developed, has far from been clarified. Furthermore, research on the brains of whales and other animals, their social behaviour and their ability to communicate, has not reached a point whereby it is possible to say anything definite on the issue. This fact gives rise to speculation and audacious hypotheses. On the basis of existing, scientific literature on the subject, there is, however, nothing to indicate that whales, in any relevant context, are any more highly developed than, forexample, pigs or cows.
If the opponents of whaling maintain that whales have the right to life, then they must take the consequences of their point of view and acknowledge that not only whales, but also other animals like pigs and cows, have a right to life. Only a few are willing to do so. Among these we find the two trend-setting philosophers and defenders of animal rights, Peter Singer and Tom Regan. Both are vegetarians and argue that people in the rich countries must change their lifestyles completely in order to live up to demands on equal consideration to Man and animals.
Most people, however, will accept the aforementioned intermediate view, saying that it is acceptable to slaughter pigs and cows as long as the animals have lived under reasonable conditions. We have an obligation not to subject animals to suffering, but we do not have an obligation to refrain from killing them. Many opponents of whaling that accept this intermediate view concerning animal rights, try to show that whaling is different from the farming of pigs and cows in so far as whaling causes great suffering prior to death. In contrast to this, pigs and other domestic animals are killed in a "humane" way, i.e. quickly and painlessly.
Killing Methods
Before being slaughtered, pigs and cows are stunned with a bolt pistol or the with
help of C02. There is good reason to believe that these methods ensure that the
animals lose consciousness immediately without experiencing any kind of pain.
The same thing cannot be said of the killing of whales.
Over the past decade, however, a great effort has been put into improving killing
methods. The penthrite grenade has been developed, exploding inside the whale
and killing it relatively quickly by way of a shock wave. Instantaneous killing,
however, requires a reasonably accurate hit, something which does not always
happen. Surveys made on Norwegian minke whaling in 1984-1986, where
penthrite grenades were used, show that in most cases the time to death was
under two minutes. The average time to death was,however, over 6 minutes,
something which is attributable to the fact that one did not always hit accurately.
The longest registered time to death was almost one hour, involving a whale that
escaped at first, but was later found and killed.
Even though killing methods for whales are being further improved, it will never be possible to achieve such quick and efficient killing methods as those that are employed in the slaughter of pigs and other domestic animals. On this point, there is a clear ethically relevantdifference between domestic farming and whaling. The supporters of whaling have, however, pointed out that it is wrong to focus the debate exclusively on the time to death, one must also include the suffering experienced prior to death. Here, it is worth noting that pigs, cows and other domestic animals are subjected to considerable stress in connection with transport which can go on for whole or half days, and in connection with treatment at the abattoir. At the abattoir, the animals are placed in large pens together with animals they have never seen before. From here, they are driven on to the actual place of slaughter.
Furthermore, one might poi nt out that before being caught, whales have lived a free and natural life, whereas most pigs, for instance, live in pens which only to a very limited extent allow the animals to behave naturally. In many countries, a sow, for instance, will be fastened to a box or be in reins most of the time, where all it can do is sit down or stand up again.
Finally, it is also relevant to compare whaling to those types of hunt that are carried out in those countries wishing to ban whaling. Birds and game animals are killed either with a shotgun or a rifle. A very large percentage of these animals are only wounded, and a large number of the wounded animals are not found again. Many of them will endure a slow and painful death. It is then, difficult to understand how one can reject whaling on the basis of time to death, while at the same time accepting the far less efficient killing methods used for hunting birds and game animals.
Not Necessary
Another common reason given for wanting to ban whaling is that whaling is not
necessary. Other products can substitute everything that whales are used for, and
economically whaling is more or less insignificant. If a regulated catch of minke
whales was resumed, it would not be noticeable in Norway's national accounts.
This argument, however, suffers from an important ethical defect. The fact that
whaling does not have any effect on the national economy is because we are
talking about a small trade. On the other hand, the catch may be of considerable
economic importance for the small whaling communities. Whaling, for instance,
appears to be of decisive importance as regards the possibility of maintaining
some of the small, combined fishing and whaling communities that still exist in
the North of Norway. Doesn't consideration for the population of Lofoten count,
just because it is so small?
Human Rights
One of the principal ethical considerations of the Declaration of Human Rights is
precisely the notion that rights are something which each individual human being
has, and that one's rights do not depreciate simply because one belongs to a small,
vulnerable group.
Naturally, there may arise conflicts where the interests of the few must give way to those of the majority. This is the case with the building of roads, docks or power stations where people might be forced to move or have their lives changed in some other way as a result.
The opponents of whaling have claimed that we have a similar case where
whaling is concerned, too. Should commercial whaling again be permitted, it
would violate strong emotions among millions of people in Europe and North
America. On the other hand, there are only a few thousand people who would
benefit from a resumption of whaling. Therefore, the interests of the few must
give way to those of the majority. Some compensation might be paid though, as is
the case with expropriations in connection with public works. In order to be able
to make allowances for the feelings of the many opponents of whaling, the
whalers are to be paid to leave the whales alone, and in return, be given money to
buy pork and chicken.
Several important problems arise in connection with this argument, however. We
do not normally find it acceptable to encroach upon the rights of minorities
merely because their behaviour is considered offensive by a large number of
people. One would, for instance, find it quite unacceptable to ban sexual relations
between homosexuals simply because many heterosexual men find such a thing
offensive. Consider the case of Salman Rushdie. There is no doubt that "The
Satanic Verse" greatly offends a large majority of muslims. But even though such a
large number of muslims are offended by the book and yearn for revenge over the
author, we cannot accept that his life and freedom are threatened.
Conclusion
Some opponents of whaling claim that it is wrong to hunt whales because whalers
violate the rights of whales. Their justification is that we would not be able to
accept that human beings were treated in the same manner, and that it is not
possible to point out a relevant difference between human beings and whales.
The best answer to this argument is to say that there is a relevant difference between human beings and whales as far as killing is concerned. Human beings have a high degree of self-consciousness and the killing of human beings has terrible consequences for those that survive. To be sure, there are also some human beings that do not have any self-consciousness, but not allowing them the right to life, would have grave consequences.
As regards the right not to be subjected to unnecessary suffering, there are no relevant differences between whales and human beings. Therefore, those wishing to defend whaling, should work towards ensuring that whales are subjected to as little pain and suffering as possible in connection with the hunt and the kill.