Mass Killing of Dolphins (Kindly Watch This)

[KE-25]

Goodness! some serious exchange of ideas in here, as I've been wondering around the different topics within the community I can't help but notice a debate sparking up here and there, which at times could be very intense, while this is good for opinion sharing, exchanging of ideas or an educational thing, must we always argue? I tend to wonder if our negative culture gets the best of us. We should place this energy to something positive

The fact remains a specie is being harvested for food while sad, people are different and able to voice out whatever he or she believes in without trying to take ones head off , 2 cents , heck maybe dolphins can teach us a thing or two about humility.

Oh and yes great picture

[sgrnim]

I am against commercial whaling, but not against the continuation of culture and tradition of some Arctic people, because these traditions partly arose from economic needs (at least in the past, this was an important food source for them, continuing to this day). Besides, there's almost nothing to hunt there that's not endangered. People from more resource-rich areas should refrain from consuming those endangered species though.

I would not like to condone cannibalism though. I won't be philosophical about it and we don't need to create new terms on why. It is enough to say that there's a big difference between what you serve on the table and that YOU yourself become a meal for someone else. Di ko anang cannibalism oi, bahala na ug culture & tradition na, ako pa lang hinuon ihawon. Besides, cannibalism is the most likely cause of kuru (a disease similar to mad cow disease).

Hope if you want to discuss your philosophy, pls adto na lang siguro sa laing thread? Unless any of you are vegans or believers of Jainism, we all have our different reasons on why we would like to save this animal rather than that other animal. We don't need any profound philosophy to convince other people. Mas cute man gyud ang dolphins, polar bears, pandas, etc. Puwede na na nga reason for the common people

we are not against the eating of dolphens and whales because in eating such so human survive.. we are against of the way of hunting them, it must not in Brutal way of killing them..

[zurita10]

Shredder: Tonight I dine dolphine soup, oh I mean turtle soup. My bad.

[The_Child]

@The_Child

Ok for the sake of your ego...I will throw the towel if that pleases you. Now please be simple and as clear as possible about the topic okay? Lets cut the BS first about postmodern/classical philosophy as we are not doing justice to the readers. Besides I don't see the point bringing them up here so please be direct with your answers (avoid off topic discussions) kay nireklamo na si rodsky

1) If you're saying that the issue is about ethics (as an alternative proposal) whose ethics is it?
2) Do you think that anybody's ethics would stop the whale-hunters in slaughtering the whales?

Probs is...I think we're not on the same page. Kana lang sa...and please stick with those questions and please be straightforward. Okay?

Cheers!

throw in the last insult., my ego nahinuon? interesting. I did my best to be simple if you read my first few posts. the BS about the postmodern/classical philosophy was not my bringing you flaunted it. I have always been direct, and but you had to detour away with your attempt to a rhetoric.
================================================== ======
so here, the point being, if i have to summarize my point is merely:

1.) this topic is an ethical issue.
2.) that this ethical issue, must not necessarily be seen as purely utilitarian - what is useful, what is not, the market forces, future scientific research,
3.) there was one who pointed out, sorry i cant remember his nick, a more rational justification for saving the whales,i.e, whales belong to a the ecosystem and that the balance of ecosystem does not only concern us, or the whales but the entire ecosystem. And that we human beings, being the "top" species has this obligation of responsibility.
4.) that was a substantial justification, although my point wants to go further than mere responsibility and the survival of the ecosystem.
5.) thus, i presented an alternative of looking at the issue and its justification, to consider the whales and dolphins not merely to be save because they are useful in whatever means to man's quest to destroy the world euphemistically considered as human progress, but because dolphins and whales have an inherent worth.
6.) inherent worth! is my point. i didnt drive that you accept it, i merely presented an alternative. Because if we look at everything in a purely utilitarian view, then we would also look at issues such as abortion and euthanasia, senile folks, and cloning, in the same fashion which has its repercussions. (i will not elaborate the link further because it is quite long)
7.) i did my best to be less technical, until came a direct insinuation to discuss the entire development of ethics.

so the point being was merely an alternative in looking at the issue.


@ brownprose. questions.

the issue has always been ethical. in the first place, every justification for human action (in this case whale hunting) is an ethical issue. i merely stated an alternative to the general utilitarian principles (the principle of what is most useful- this is the most general, because utilitarianism has alot of shade) by presenting a perspective of looking at in in way that dolphins are worth saving because of their inherent worth, not because they are useful things, not because they maintain the ecosystem but merely because they are alive, and they feel suffering, they feel pain and they are not merely objects.

Your next question i presume would be, how does this stand convince whale-hunting to stop?

[ninzska21]

SICK! just plain SICK!

they are lucky to have this creature in their waters.... they just disrespect it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DIE DIE! you -------- European!

-------------------------

Sorry Mod. i just cant seem to stop what im feeling...

[brownprose]

so here, the point being, if i have to summarize my point is merely:

1.) this topic is an ethical issue.

Okay...If this is an ethical issue. Whose ethics are we talking about?

2.) that this ethical issue, must not necessarily be seen as purely utilitarian - what is useful, what is not, the market forces, future scientific research,

Fine. If this is an ethical issue, again whose ethics are we saying here? What makes whaling unethical. Has whaling been defined by at least any global treaty to be highly unethical? Please show facts.

3.) there was one who pointed out, sorry i cant remember his nick, a more rational justification for saving the whales,i.e, whales belong to a the ecosystem and that the balance of ecosystem does not only concern us, or the whales but the entire ecosystem. And that we human beings, being the "top" species has this obligation of responsibility.

I thought I said something like that too...but then again let's just give the credit to that chap you just forgot. He deserves it. And I mean it. Now going back, so who determines what's responsible whaling and what's not? Are there any laws/ethical standards universally accepted that make whaling an irresponsible act?

4.) that was a substantial justification, although my point wants to go further than mere responsibility and the survival of the ecosystem.

Fine. I wanna just hear the ethics part. Who's going to determine what's ethical for the whale hunters and what's not?

5.) thus, i presented an alternative of looking at the issue and its justification, to consider the whales and dolphins not merely to be save because they are useful in whatever means to man's quest to destroy the world euphemistically considered as human progress, but because dolphins and whales have an inherent worth.

Fine. Whose ethics is going to determine their inherent worth?

6.) inherent worth! is my point. i didnt drive that you accept it, i merely presented an alternative. Because if we look at everything in a purely utilitarian view, then we would also look at issues such as abortion and euthanasia, senile folks, and cloning, in the same fashion which has its repercussions. (i will not elaborate the link further because it is quite long)

Inherent worth it is. As I have said who defines the "inherent worth" of the whales as far as the whale hunters are concerned or as far as those who find no fault in whale hunting?

7.) i did my best to be less technical, until came a direct insinuation to discuss the entire development of ethics.

Fine. So what's going to be the role of ethics NOW to stop the killing of the whales. Can you be more specific which ethics are we talking here to tell at least one whale hunter that hey "Mr. Whale Hunter that's no can do...coz that's 'unethical'."

@ brownprose. questions.

the issue has always been ethical. in the first place, every justification for human action (in this case whale hunting) is an ethical issue. i merely stated an alternative to the general utilitarian principles (the principle of what is most useful- this is the most general, because utilitarianism has alot of shade) by presenting a perspective of looking at in in way that dolphins are worth saving because of their inherent worth, not because they are useful things, not because they maintain the ecosystem but merely because they are alive, and they feel suffering, they feel pain and they are not merely objects.

Fine fine fine...No quarrel. Let's just say I was wrong about utilitarianism. How do you wish the message of ethics to get across to stop the killings? How do you tell at least one whale hunter to convince him that your ethics is correct?

Your next question i presume would be, how does this stand convince whale-hunting to stop?
Bingo! Glad you finally see my point. So what is it gonna be for you?

[The_Child]

so here, the point being, if i have to summarize my point is merely:

Bingo! Glad you finally see my point. So what is it gonna be for you?

there you go its an ethical issue. thats my point, an alternative is to look at whales having inherent value. technical term is deontology/internal as opposed to teleology or utilitarianism or external.

you dont. in the long-term you use education, in short-term: state-intervention. the same way as you do with the justification of utilitarianism. Slavery and segregation and racism where utilitarian in perspective, by presenting an alternative that slaves and other races (particularly the black race) are also human beings, possessing inherent worth, that they should be freed from discrimination and slavery. You dont go around and tell them, its utilitarian to free the slave, because it will result in this and that, you dont also go around and tell them, we need to free the slaves because they possess human worth, no. you convince the State, which is more 'rational' than the individuals compromising its majority, about the errors of its way and the need for State Intervention. while in the long run educate the citizens on the issue why it is immoral.

You present the state a justification to intervene. if there is no justification why would there be any intervention in the first place. so there i underline the importance of justification, and the best justification i believe is look at it with its inherent worth. i already stated in earlier posts how ethical issues are taken into important consideration during policy-making. that is i believe the best solution. in the case of this issue, a higher board is needed, perhaps the UN.

[brownprose]

there you go its an ethical issue. thats my point, an alternative is to look at whales having inherent value. technical term is deontology/internal as opposed to teleology or utilitarianism or external.

you dont. in the long-term you use education, in short-term: state-intervention. the same way as you do with the justification of utilitarianism. Slavery and segregation and racism where utilitarian in perspective, by presenting an alternative that slaves and other races (particularly the black race) are also human beings, possessing inherent worth, that they should be freed from discrimination and slavery. You dont go around and tell them, its utilitarian to free the slave, because it will result in this and that, you dont also go around and tell them, we need to free the slaves because they possess human worth, no. you convince the State, which is more 'rational' than the individuals compromising its majority, about the errors of its way and the need for State Intervention. while in the long run educate the citizens on the issue why it is immoral.

You present the state a justification to intervene. if there is no justification why would there be any intervention in the first place. so there i underline the importance of justification, and the best justification i believe is look at it with its inherent worth. i already stated in earlier posts how ethical issues are taken into important consideration during policy-making. that is i believe the best solution. in the case of this issue, a higher board is needed, perhaps the UN.

Noted on the UN Intervention The_Child. But as I have said, it is a weak argument if you stand for their "inherent value." I could be wrong here, but the advocacy that has been drumbeated is not deolontogical at all as far as environmental scientists are concerned.

Lower life forms possess the same inherent value as the whale. Therefore, the question would be: What makes the dolphins and the whales so special a life form that they deserve to have more inherent value than livestock?

And:

1) How do you wish to compare the "deolontological ethics" with the deolontogical ethics that is in the minds of the whale hunters assuming they have a good concept of what deontology means as much as you do?

2) And what good of deontology if they (whale hunters) find no inherent worth of the whales?

3) If you're saying state intervention, of what's worth a deontological stance when a state like Japan
and Denmark for example find no need to weigh the ethics involved deontologically (if you will)? In
simple terms, how do you wish to push such idea when those particularly involved don't even take
it as an ethical/deontological in nature?

4) What makes you think this is a case of deontology please provide examples (as you did with slavery,
racism etc.) are there any historical precedents?

5) Finally, I presume deontologists are moral absolutists as far as my rusted philosophy goes.
Question: Of what right do deotontologists possess to insist the correctness/wrongness of
whaling? If it is wrong on the account of disrespect for their inherent value -- how do you define
the inherent value in whales both in their subjective and objective form? Are these definitions
universally covered by treaties or at least a manifesto signed by a majority of nations?

Can you please answer them one by one?

[torny69]

btaw bro...if they practice this for centuries so maybe dili jud ni ma stop.

[The_Child]

Noted on the UN Intervention The_Child. But as I have said, it is a weak argument if you stand for their "inherent value." I could be wrong here, but the advocacy that has been drumbeated is not deolontogical at all as far as environmental scientists are concerned.

Lower life forms possess the same inherent value as the whale. Therefore, the question would be: What makes the dolphins and the whales so special a life form that they deserve to have more inherent value than livestock?

And:

1) How do you wish to compare the "deolontological ethics" with the deolontogical ethics that is in the minds of the whale hunters assuming they have a good concept of what deontology means as much as you do?

2) And what good of deontology if they (whale hunters) find no inherent worth of the whales?

3) If you're saying state intervention, of what's worth a deontological stance when a state like Japan
and Denmark for example find no need to weigh the ethics involved deontologically (if you will)? In
simple terms, how do you wish to push such idea when those particularly involved don't even take
it as an ethical/deontological in nature?

4) What makes you think this is a case of deontology please provide examples (as you did with slavery,
racism etc.) are there any historical precedents?

5) Finally, I presume deontologists are moral absolutists as far as my rusted philosophy goes.
Question: Of what right do deotontologists possess to insist the correctness/wrongness of
whaling? If it is wrong on the account of disrespect for their inherent value -- how do you define
the inherent value in whales both in their subjective and objective form? Are these definitions
universally covered by treaties or at least a manifesto signed by a majority of nations?

Can you please answer them one by one?

exactly. very good point sir, what is the difference between the dolphins, whales with the lower life forms. because if we do not make any difference at all, then we would should be, under the guise of life-form rights to be wearing gauze and filter mask inorder not to kill microorganism by breathing. This is where science helps ethics, such that science provides ethics the data on the developed brain functions of certain animals that determines certain qualities such as the the feeling and cognition of pain, suffering (not in the basic level as merely constituting a stimulus response but something higher) that is equal to say the least to the lowest form of human consciousness - the senile old man across the street.

here is the link. if dolphins are slaughtered purely because of utilitarian reasons market forces, and if assuming, (i could not verify the text because it is back in my study at home and im way way way away from my study; perhaps somebody could corroborate this, but the text or the list states a comparative anatomy of the brains of vertebrates and mollusks and their brain functions in regards to feeling) that they have that basic consciousness of feeling, suffering, etc. like that of the lowest human consciousness - senile folks , then we would also have the justification to kill old men because they are useless in society and adds to the liability of state resources and economic appropriation. i believe if only we are willing to do the latter then it would be clear in our conscience to do the former. (this is merely one among many repercussions to a utilitarian point of view)

yes. thats why we dont just present them in a crash course of what deontology is, that is why we go to the State and offer a justification for state action. (this is more tricky, because deontology in terms of human to human relation has a simple method of convincing in the basic level, appealing to the them as the same with the other human being who is the subject of the action - appeal to making them realize they are merely one among other human beings and that such an action could also occur to you, in this animal issue it is different because they are animals)

then it would become a matter of ethical debate. the dialogue here is not between an ethicist to the whaling community, no because the gap of interaction is wide. rather, it is a dialogue between ethicist-ethicist-government-whaling community. An ethicist could not, i repeat just go to whaling company and lecture on ethics, that would be absurd, even if i was the CEO, i would have him kicked out already from my company. thus the prudent action, i think, is for this justification to be transmitted to the State or to a Supra- State: UN, to obligate them for intervention. That is how pressure-groups works, although their agenda may be different from this issue, such as feminine rights or what, they go to the state bearing with them certain theses or justification for such Legislations and State Intervention to be done. but im not necessarily saying we should act like a pressure group,all im saying this is how it is legally done.
Unlike others, who go to the extreme: Eco-terrorism - when tree-huggers gone bad.


case of deontology. im just stating that as an alternative to the utilitarian view that was ballyhooed here. there are always two cases of looking at an issue, an inherent value or a purpose. The former is deontology or internal and the latter external perspepective in ethics. The former does something ethical because it is 'good' for no other reason. the latter does an action because of certain external conditions: usefulness, under the pain of punishment, etc. e.g jaywalking. either i do not jay walk because i believe it is inherently bad, breaking the law by walking across the street is bad no matter what (deontological), the other: i will not cross the street because i do not want to pay 50 freakin pesos as a fine. (external). thats just an example. in illustrating the two perspective.
and i dont think there is a need for historical justifications.

a moral absolutist in such a sense, since actions are not dependent on situations and context. it is universal-izable. it goes beyond time and culture. some old people in philo calls it the categorical imperative. it is transcultural. which unlike utilitarianism is dependent on the circumstances surrounding the issue, the same with situational ethics.

treaties afterall are just conventional laws. a treaty here does not obligate parties not bound within the treaty making it non-universal-izable. to assume a right would make it more problematic so lets not go there, suffice to say that: i think it is precisely because deontology is an obligation do what is right because it is right. you do it because it is good in itself and for no other reason. To say disrespect is an understatement. its like saying i kill my aunt therefore i disrespect her life - no, i think its more than just disrespect. on regards to the inherent value, i mentioned it above.

cheers!