When South Korea
announced their plan to
recommence whaling after a twenty six year moratorium under the disguise
of 'scientific research', Australian politicians and the Australian
media exploded with outrage. The Prime Minister (friend and advocate
of animal agriculture) condemned the plan quite strongly with the
statement, “[w]e are completely opposed to whaling" and
Opposition environment spokesman Greg Hunt said that "[t]he
world is moving away from whaling, this is a practice of the past."
(http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-05/south-korea-to-start-scientific-whaling/4111038)
South Korea’s
reasoning for recommencing whaling has nothing to do,
however, with research at all. According to ABC, the South Korean
delegates at the International Whaling Commission claim that fisherman were calling for the slaughter of whales because "an
increasing number of minke whales are eating away large amount of
fish stocks which should be consumed by human being
[sic]." (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-05/south-korea-to-start-scientific-whaling/4111038)
Clearly this reason is not scientific, but merely an opportunity to
cull the whales which are interfering with the local fishing economy.
South Korea's plan was officially abandoned under intense
international pressure.
Whales are seen in our culture as creatures which should be exempted from the normal routine slaughter of aquatic animals. We have elevated them to a status above fish and a rich culture of venerating these creatures as ‘highly intelligent’ means that people in Western countries generally think that whales should be excluded from being killed merely for food.
Whales are seen in our culture as creatures which should be exempted from the normal routine slaughter of aquatic animals. We have elevated them to a status above fish and a rich culture of venerating these creatures as ‘highly intelligent’ means that people in Western countries generally think that whales should be excluded from being killed merely for food.
We
create hierarchies of animals based on perceived levels of
intelligence. This intelligence-centric model of classification
discriminates against animals morally based on a fairly arbitrary
characteristic, i.e. whether or not they meet our standard for
being considered 'intelligent'.
When we talk about humans, however, someone’s moral worth is not based on how intelligent they are. We no longer exclude intellectually disabled people from basic human rights simply because they are not perceived as meeting the standard definition of ‘intelligence’. Similarly, a person does not (or at least should not) acquire more rights based on their ‘intelligence’ (unofficial status granted by privilege and class aside).
When we talk about humans, however, someone’s moral worth is not based on how intelligent they are. We no longer exclude intellectually disabled people from basic human rights simply because they are not perceived as meeting the standard definition of ‘intelligence’. Similarly, a person does not (or at least should not) acquire more rights based on their ‘intelligence’ (unofficial status granted by privilege and class aside).
The most carnistic
of my peers, relatives, and even acquaintances condemn whaling. They speak about the whales in terms of awe
and reverence, almost as if whales are somehow worthy of more moral
concern than the cow they paid someone to butcher for dinner, or the male
chicken who was put through a grinder at birth simply because he
can't lay eggs. But why do we think these animals ought to be viewed
differently? It's a little easier to understand when we separate
dogs and cats from cows and chickens; we live with dogs and cats,
they are part of our daily lives, they are our friends, confidants,
and cuddle-monsters.
But whales are
other-worldly, ocean-dwelling creatures that have captured our
imagination, but we have no prolonged, meaningful relationships with
these creatures. They are even more distant from our every day lives
than the dead bodies of chickens, cows, pigs, turkeys, and ducks
under which our tables and our stomachs strain.
We condemn cultures
that eat dogs, whales, and dolphins, with indignant moral outrage.
But really, what's the difference between serving dog for dinner
rather than pig? Cultural diversity means that different cultures
assign different moral status to different animals. Yes, in South
Korea you can eat dog, but here in Australia, you can eat cow.
There is no moral
reason why we treat whales differently from chickens, cows, pigs,
turkeys, ducks or dogs. We have excuses; convenience, pleasure, and
tradition, but none of these is a reason. Australia's response to
South Korea's whaling plan shows that we categorise animals into
morally inconsistent hierarchies based on whether or not it
inconveniences our everyday lives, or our pleasures of the palate, or if it steps on the toes of tradition. We
declare ourselves a nation of animal lovers, yet our notion of 'love'
is warped. We love our pets and stick forks into the dead bodies of
pigs. Can you really act in this way and call yourself an animal
lover?
It's great that we
care about whales, dogs, cats, and the other animals to whom we open
our hearts and our homes. But it makes no sense to treat these
animals differently from the billions of other animals that are oppressed and slaughtered merely for reasons of pleasure, convenience, or entertainment.
- Stevie Schafer,
2012
