Do you actually believe that the intelligence of whales is a good argument against whaling?

Question

Because if you do, then you're saying in other words that stupid humans can be hunted and eaten, and that if pigs and cows and chickens were smarter than whales they shouldn't be eaten.

Do you agree?

Answer 1

I don't believe any sentient creature should be harmed for our pleasure.

Yes, I am a vegetarian.  I believe we are all God's creation, and just as I would not want someone killing my child for pleasure or food when other food sources are available, I don't believe God is happy with those who needlessly kill and cause harm to His creatures.  

I'm healthy and happy living with a plant-based diet (plants do not have nervous systems and therefore, do not feel pain as animals do, so please don't start that goofy argument just to be stubborn).  If I don't have to eat meat, then I'm not going to do it.  For omnivorous humans, it's a moral choice (unlike for carnivorous animals, who have no moral decision to make).  If we've got the choice to eat plants, be healthy, and not cause harm, then why not do it?

And for those who argue that many creatures, insects and small mammals, are killed in the production of plants, well, just as many if not more are killed in the production of grains to feed livestock, in addition to the slaughter of the livestock itself.  So it's  hardly causing LESS harm to eat meat.

It's a choice everyone has to make, and we're all free to choose to eat meat or not eat it.  I choose not to, because I love and respect animals and wouldn't kill them myself if I had to.  Why should I ask someone else to do what I would shrink from doing?  

I do not want to be responsible for the suffering of other creatures.  I would rather cause less harm in the world than that.

But it's an individual choice and it's a moral choice, so I'm  not saying my decision is the only correct one.  I'm only saying that this is MY choice.

Then again, I also believe that after we die, God shows us all the good and evil we committed in our lives, all that we were responsible for while we were living.  We have to experience it as if we were living it ourselves.  This is how we understand the impact we made on the world.  I'd rather not accrue more harm than I already have, thank you!  

But you--you're free to make your own decisions and have your own beliefs on the matter.  I wish more people believed like I do, but then again, when I was young and ate meat, I was always irritated by self-righteous vegetarians.  I needed to come to my belief system on my own, at my own pace.  I loved animals, but wasn't ready to give up meat.  Just as now, I'm not ready to give up milk and eggs just yet.  I'm working on it, but it's going to take some time before I can be that strong.  

We all choose our own paths--that's what free will is all about.

Answer 2

No, that is a poor argument for whaling.

I can't think of a really GOOD reason for it!

Answer 3

If the intelligence of an animal was taken into consideration, we would not have any meat to eat.  I am against that.

I believe that animals were put here on earth for our pleasure and for food and clothing.  If I am hunting for food for my family, I cannot be bothered whether the animal is smarter than me or any other animal.  I do not hunt for sport; I don't believe in it.  But, it is never right to hunt humans regardless of their intelligence quotient.

Answer 4

No matter what a person's opinion is, there are always those who disagree!  And, unfortunately, the cruel and inhumane ways of some individuals, will never be a thing of the past.

Answer 5

I dont really like the hunting and eating of any creature so i only partly agree!  What the Japenese are doing is wrong.  I think the intelligence of whales is a good reason not to kill them.  Have you ever seen a whale being harpooned?  It is awful.  These animals are amazing and just live their lives, what right does anyone have to disturb that.

Answer 6

personally, i do not think it is a good argument against whaling as a policy. individual persons may be influenced additionally by this argument based on emotional reasons, similar to how we exempt individual members of species we normally eat if we've made them into pets and develop an emotional attachment to them. however, unless a nation has a consensus to develop policy on the basis of religion or emotional aspects, it is not a good reason.

my personal reason why i am against whaling (similarly for any other potentially unsustainable hunting) is that because they have such long lifespans and slow reproduction, it would take a really long time to study their population dynamics in order to decide how much should be hunted, if they can be hunted sustainably at all. perhaps one or two species could be hunted sustainably, but nobody can really say. we often have a tendency to prematurely announce everything's fixed, when a population appears to show a rise in numbers after some years in decline, when it may not mean a real recovery - longer observation is necessary for long-lived species where changes that took place 10 years ago may only surface today. additionally, normally species at the top of the food chain have a big role to play in terms of keeping the food web ecology stable. and since we also derive benefit from other parts of the ecology, it is best we don't rock the boat too much. it is the same reason i am against shark finning and predation of turtles.

biodiversity is good for ecosystem stability, which is in turn good for us, and top predators and large organisms tend to be good for biodiversity and stability.

Answer 7

Now you are seeing the logic of universal order.  Every decision is a test.

Answer 8

who knows just how intelligent these great mammals are, why would we want to kill them, they might be able to figure out glabal warming.

Answer 9

even the stupidest of humans is able to describe accurately what their mother looks like - the cleverest whale could not even come close to that.

whale intelligence is not a primary reason they should not be hunted. octopuses are highly intelligent, but it would be difficult to make a case for sparing them.

the reason whales should not be hunted is that all whale species are currently at risk.

we have the biodiversity of our planet in keeping for the generations who come after us. it is wrong to kill any animal for a frivolous reason, and very wrong indeed to drive any species extinct.

(have you ever read what james fenimore cooper wrote about the passenger pigeon)?

Answer 10

The best argument against whaling is that it serves no purpose. Whale oil is not a necessary commodity. Whale meat tastes horrible. (At least that's what I have read.)

We should never kill an animal for no good reason. If you can't eat it and you cant use it, then let it go.

Answer 11

An intelegent species is one that lives within the carrying capacity of it's environment.

A definition of a stupid human would be one that can't understand how the eco-system has evolved so that we all depend on healthy, balanced, bio-diverse life support systems.

there are many cheaper, more convenient, safer (eg containing less toxic chemials like mercury) & more sustainable meat/protien sources than large whaleing fleets. Government subsidies of long distance expeditions to supply pet food & fashion tastes is just stupid. Perhaps not as stupid as cutting the fins off living sharkes, or collecting endangered bird spit, for soups that have to be flavoured with other ingredients to make them edible, but it  is down there.

Answer 12

i don't think that this issue is a question of intelligence,it's mainly that whaling isn't really neccesary and is persued by the japanese and norwegians merely to satisfy their food whims. whale pods are very social groups and do no harm to anyone they are killed by the hunters by firing high explosive charges into their bodies and contary to claims they somtimes take hours to die in great pain although the japanese probably don't think that whales are capable of feeling pain.i certainly don't think that the opposition to whaling is a anti japanese thing but given the atrocities commited by them during the last war i don't blame people for thinking so

Answer 13

There is no real argument against the responsible whaling of abundant species.  The greenies use touchy-feely instead of reason.   They think that certain animals lives are more special, and worthy of preserving,  because of intelligence (whales, dolphins), how cuddly they are (Pandas), how emblematic of the wilderness  they are (wolves), or how awesome they are as carnivores (sharks, tigers), or as perfect victims of "GW" (Polar bears)  They are not principled enough to realize that no animal is intrinsically more worthy of life than any other.   Greenies want to "humanize" in some way certain animals, and then these become their darlings.  They don't really love animals as much as they love their cause, which means they love themselves most of all.

Answer 14

All animals are smart.

Answer 15

Watch video hear the songs of the whales at the end then come back and answer this question again. Link may not work type www.greenpeace,org/usa/news