Hunting Whales

This issue comes up now and again in AP headlines. Japan is always trying to harvest whales under the guise of scientific research, but most countries in the International Whaling Commission oppose Japan's efforts to liberalize whale hunting. I don't think there is a clear foundation for such strong opposition. As it is, certain small island communities can hunt whales, such as natives of the Solomon and Faroe islands, as well as Alaska natives apparently. This is done so they can maintain their way of life. Fine, but to play the devil's advocate, what about Japan? Do they not have a right to continue making whale steaks or whatever they eat? From reading the news articles, it seems the importance of whale meat in Japanese society has gotten an artificial boost by the state in recent times. So a critic might chalk it up to that stubborn Japanese nationalism, since it seems they are always so unapologetic in controversies like the existence of comfort women and history textbook accuracy. But that is for another discussion.

Suffice to say, there is no reason not to allow Japan to hunt some limited number of whales to please the palates of connoisseurs, real or imagined. One objection would be the endangered status of whales, but if a certain species has escaped into a less-threatened status, or is rather plentiful by some ecologically determined standard, then why shouldn't there be a quota based on a sustainable harvest rate? In fact, the IWC could make good money off the licenses, and have it go back into conservation, just as Ducks Unlimited does. Instead, Japanese whalers make the thinnest excuse ever by calling the culling of hundreds of whales "scientific research." The idea is pretty farcical, but nonetheless this doesn't negate the valid right of people to harvest natural resources for food.

A further objection with regard to endangered status and in fact to humane hunting processes is the question of enforcing limits and laws on the whalers. Some critics complain that Japanese whalers still use crude and cruel methods to kill whales, when there are regulations restricting harvesting to more humane techniques. The problem with this proposition though is what makes whaling especially more difficult to regulate than what is already legal, say trawler net fishing or raising livestock? If this question can't be effectively answered, then whaling should be allowed.

Beyond these considerations lie arguments against the killing of animals of high order of intelligence. In The Problem of Pain, C.S. Lewis examines the question of animal pain and just what an animal really is philosophically. An animal may sense pain, but as far as we know it has no collected mind's eye by which it can conceive over time that it itself has been in a state of pain. In the same manner, an animal lacks the faculty to distinguish itself as a noble creature. Humans still ponder what it is to be human, but cats never sit around wondering what is cattiness. Because of this, animals don't share the same absolute claim to rights that humans do. Certainly, we shouldn't inflict wanton pain on animals, but we shouldn't lose sleep over which animals we kill and eat. I probably would even extend this to dogs. If the animal is abused in its being raised or slaughtered, that is another matter.

Ultimately, what is wrong with killing a whale to eat? It need not be ridiculously more wasteful than currently accepted forms of meat consumption. If whales are harvested in sustainable numbers, species survival shouldn't be a concern. Any animal that is not a human doesn't share in the entire pool of human rights, and it would be silly if it did. If a society like Japan has genuine cultural appreciation of eating whales, then there must be some reasonable arrangement for the legal harvesting of these animals.