Student: Sebastian Moore

POLS312: 2500-3000 Word Essay

Word Count: 2703

Research Question:

Can the killing of whales be justified if it serves a cultural purpose?

Whaling is one of the oldest known areas of the over-exploitation of Nature. 1 Consequently, it was
necessary to establish an international authority that could conserve whale species where other
attempts had failed. 2 The International Whaling Commission (IWC) was thus formed as an
international body providing for the terms set out in the International Convention for the Regulation
of Whaling (ICRW), 3 culminating in the IWCs establishment of a moratorium on commercial whaling
in 1982.4 However, for countries such as Norway and Japan it has been argued that as a result of
cultural considerations, exemptions should be made 5, these arguments being assisted by the strong,
historical and cultural traditions in whaling that would be violated if whaling was prohibited. 6 This
essay will attempt to provide an evaluative summary of the arguments proposed regarding the
question of whether the killing of whales be justified if it serves a cultural purpose through the
application of ethical theory.

Before attempting to analyses the breadth of arguments regarding this ethical question, we must
first consider whether whales have direct moral standing, for this argument to even be valid.

Scarff, J. E. (1977). The International Management of Whales, Dolphins and Porpoises: An Interdisciplinary
Assessment., p. 343
2
Gillespie, A. (1997). The ethical question in the whaling debate. Georgetown International Environmental Law
Review, 9:2, p. 355.
3
International Whaling Commission. (1946). International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, Schedule,
http://iwc.int/private/downloads/1lv6fvjz06f48wc44w4s4w8gs/Schedule-February-2013.pdf (accessed 15
May 2014).
4
DAmato, A., & Chopra, S. (1991). Whales: Their Emerging Right to Life. American Journal of International Law,
85:21, p. 16.
5
Gillespie, op.cit., p 374.
6
ibid.

Student: Sebastian Moore

POLS312: 2500-3000 Word Essay

Word Count: 2703

For something to have direct moral standing is for it, independently of its relation to other
things or creatures, to possess features in virtue of which it deserves to be given moral
consideration by agents who are capable of making moral choices. Different moral theories
represent direct moral standing in different ways. 7

Therefore in order to conceptually analyse the issue at hand, a moral or ethical theory must first be
chosen. The principal practice when approaching the question of whether animals have direct moral
standing is proffered by the philosopher Peter Singer. Singers commitment is to the utilitarian
doctrine, 8 which holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness;
wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness, 9 with happiness being defined as pleasure,
with the absence of pain. 10 Thus, when applying this moral theory to animals, one realises that many
nonhuman animals also experience pleasure and pain, and thus according to the traditional
utilitarian maxim, animals thus have direct moral standing and therefore should be factored into our
decision making. 11 As the eighteenth century philosopher Jeremy Bentham stated, The question is
not can they reason? Nor can they talk? The question is can they suffer? 12

However, there are critics who challenge the utility calculation. Common to their claims against the
utilitarian approachs recognition of animals having direct moral standing, is the idea that moral
consideration can only be extended to individuals who reach mandatory thresholds of rationality,
intelligence, or language, in other words, those who are sentient. This therefore implies certain
levels of rationality, intelligence, and language need to be met. 13 Yet, these arguments rest on fragile
supports. Firstly, why would an animals lacking in the normal human levels of rationality,
intelligence, or language, give us the liberty to ignore its pain? As well as this, when extending the
7

Timmons, M. (2014). Disputed moral issues: a reade.r, pp. 380-381.

Gillespie, op.cit., p 376.
9
Geirsson, H., & Holmgren, M. (2010). Ethical theory: a concise anthology., p. 90.
10
Driver, J. (2012). Consequentialism., p. 2.
11
Timmons, op.cit., p. 382.
12
Bentham, J. (1996). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation., p. 328.
13
Timmons, op.cit., p. 387.
8

Student: Sebastian Moore

POLS312: 2500-3000 Word Essay

Word Count: 2703

argument, if these three characteristics were necessary prerequisites for moral consideration, how
would one then justify moral consideration being given to human infants or severely intellectually
disabled humans, especially when many adult mammals and birds exhibit greater rationality and
intelligence then do human infants. 14 Secondly, when swapping this argument around, would one
then be justified in giving a greater moral consideration to humans with higher levels of rationality,
intelligence, or language? 15

This utilitarian position Singer holds is most often attacked by what is broadly known as
contractarianism. 16 The key characteristic of this approach is the postulating of an arena whereby
rational individuals decide which principles of justice and morality they can accept. 17 In other words,
legitimate principles of justice and morality are those that would be agreed upon by rational
individuals in appropriate circumstances. 18 It is widely assumed by contractualism theorists that due
to animals being unable to be parties to agreements, they therefore cannot be recipients of moral
consideration. 19 This appears to be confirmed by John Rawls (leading figure in social contract theory)
in his book A Theory of Justice. According to Rawls that due to society being regarded as a
cooperative venture for mutual advantage, 20 to benefit from this advantage one must be able to
provide something in return. However, unlike humans animals have no duties and do not contribute
to society in conventional ways such as earning money and therefore cannot be given moral
consideration in the form of rights. 21

14

ibid.
ibid.
16
Gillespie, op.cit., p 381.
17
Garner, R. (2013) A Theory of Justice for Animals: Animal Rights in a Nonideal World., pp. 23-24.
18
Ibid., p. 24.
19
Carruthers, P. (1992). The Animals Issue: Moral Theory in Practice., pp. 98-99.
20
Rawls, J. (1972). A Theory of Justice., p. 4.
21
Gillespie, op.cit., p 381.
15

Student: Sebastian Moore

POLS312: 2500-3000 Word Essay

Word Count: 2703

The obvious argument to this theory however is that insisting on moral agency as an entry point to
moral consideration or justice also has the effect of excluding what academic Daniel Dombrowski
terms marginal humans 22. That is human infants or severely intellectually disabled humans.
However, Rawls does make an effort to include marginal humans in his theory of justice on the
grounds that when failing to do so would create risks to just institutions (these risks he does not
define), as they would have been parties to the contract, if it had not have been for their
unfortunate circumstances, thus they should not be penalized for their bad luck. 23 But in response to
this isnt being born an animal similarly a matter of chance? 24

Another moral theory that can be used to resolve the issue of whether whales have a direct moral
standing is virtue ethics. Virtue ethics instructs us to think about the rights and wrongs of our
treatment of nonhuman animals in terms of virtues and vices rather than in terms of consequences
[utilitarianism], or rights and duties [contractarianism]. 25 Thus, according to virtue ethics killing for
example is not unjust but callous and contrary to the virtue of charity. 26 A virtue can thus be defined
as a good, or admirable, or praiseworthy character trait. 27 Therefore, when applying virtue ethics to
animals, one can see the application of moral consideration towards animals is consistent with virtue
ethics. 28 If cruelty is a vice, then to recognise an act as one of cruelty to animals is thereby to
recognise it as a wrong, and no further account of wherein its wrongness consists is called for. 29

22

Dombrowski, D. A. (1997). Babies and Beasts: The Argument from Marginal Cases., p. 2.
Rawls, op.cit., p. 509.
24
Garner, op.cit., p. 32.
25
Beauchamp, T., & Frey, R. (2011) The Oxford handbook of animal ethics., p. 119.
26
Hursthouse, R. (2001) On virtue ethics., p. 6.
27
Hursthouse, R. (2000) Ethics, humans and other animals : an introduction with readings., p. 147.
28
Garner, op.cit., p. 67.
29
Hursthouse, R. (2007) Enviromental Virtue Ehtics Walker, R., & Ivanhoe, P. Working virtue : virtue ethics and
contemporary moral problems., pp. 159.
23

Student: Sebastian Moore

POLS312: 2500-3000 Word Essay

Word Count: 2703

There are however several general problems with virtue ethics approach in relation to animals. For
example, while it is possible to identify conceptual virtues and vices, it is difficult to judge particular
actions without some prior ethical theory. 30 A contextual example of this is the conception of being
cruel to animals is usually defined in the law of most developed countries, in terms of ethical theory
that regards the exploitation of animals for human benefit as being acceptable. 31 Thus it seems that
a conception of moral virtues can never provide a complete account of morality, since it
presupposes further normative standards that cannot be reduced to virtues. 32 Another short fall of
virtue ethics when in application to animals is that it does not always provide a clear guideline to
action or moral judgement. 33 For example, cruelty and a lack of compassion can be used as vices to
justify change to the many ways in which we use animals for food. 34 However, one is then left in
the dark to decide whether it is virtuous to pursue vegetarianism or merely make an active effort to
abstain from easting animals in factory farms. 35

Thus in deciding which ethical theory one should pursue in deciding whether whales have direct
moral standing, it would be prudent to apply a utilitarian approach to the overarching question of
this essay. Not only being the principle theory applied today in the subject of animals rights, the
short falls of the competing ethical theories, whose application is not impractical when evaluating
other ethical questions, for the question at hand, Utilitarianism will be the approach that will be
applied when evaluating the arguments for and against whether the killing of whales can be justified
if it serves a cultural purpose. More specifically rule Utilitarianism, that is an act is right if it conforms

30

Garner, op.cit., p. 69.

ibid.
32
Hursthouse, R. (2007) Law, Morality and Virtue Walker, R., & Ivanhoe, P. Working virtue : virtue ethics and
contemporary moral problems., pp. 193.
33
Walker, R., & Ivanhoe, P. (2007) Working virtue : virtue ethics and contemporary moral problems., p. 7.
34
Hursthouse, R. (2007) Enviromental Virtue Ehtics Walker, R., & Ivanhoe, P. Working virtue : virtue ethics and
contemporary moral problems., pp. 156.
35
Garner, op.cit.
31

Student: Sebastian Moore

POLS312: 2500-3000 Word Essay

Word Count: 2703

to a rule (or set of rules) which if generally accepted would bring about more utility than an
alternative rule (or set of rules).

The instigation of the moratorium on commercial whaling in 1982 created a rift between two
schools of thought in the IWC. 36 On one side there were the pro-whaling states, who maintained
that whaling was a cultural tradition of their people, which they have the right to preserve, and on
the other side there was the anti-whaling states that maintained that such cultural practices were
unethical. 37 However, since its inception, the IWC has recognised that indigenous, or aboriginal
subsistence whaling of of a different nature to commercial whaling thus not subject to the
moratorium. 38Presently four countries consisting of Denmark (Greenland), the Russian Federation,
St Vincent and the Grenadines and the United States of America (USA) have been granted aboriginal
subsistence whaling for their indigenous communities, 39 however, pro whaling states such as Japan,
Norway and Iceland commonly argue that they also deserve an exemption similar to the these the
indigenous populations of these countries such as the Inuits and the Makah. 40 Both these sides,
present arguments and counter arguments to the question of whether the killing of whales be
justified if it serves a cultural purpose.

In assessing the arguments for the pro-whaling nations regarding culture the chief argument that
presents itself is that whaling is a part of their cultural heritage and its prohibition would eliminate a

36

Hodges, B. T. (2000) The cracking facade of the International Whaling Commission as an institution of
international law: Norwegian small-type whaling and the aboriginal subsistence exemption. Journal of
Environmental Law and Litigation, 15:2, pp. 295-302.
37
Gillespie, op.cit., pp. 373-375.
38
International Whaling Commission. ( n.d.). Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling, http://iwc.int/aboriginal (accessed
15 May 2014).
39
ibid.
40
Wagner, D. (2004) Competing cultural interests in the whaling debate: an exception to the universality of the
right to culture. Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems, 14:2, p. 846.

Student: Sebastian Moore

POLS312: 2500-3000 Word Essay

Word Count: 2703

way of life for their people. 41 Culture rights, although being seen as by far the least developed
human rights when regarding international agreements, are however provided for. 42 For example,
the Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity recognizes culture within the scope of cultural
pluralism, 43 allowing the provision for the the harmonious coexistence of multiple cultural
paradigms. 44 Therefore, wouldnt the IWCs refusal to extend the aboriginal subsistence to countries
such as Norway and Japan manifest in something analogous to cultural imperialism? 45

Although with international law providing for the right to culture, with neither side of the whaling
debate in essence denying that there is a right to culture, as illustrated by the states who have
exemptions to the moratorium, anti-whaling states still confront this cultural argument in two
ways. 46 The first counter argument anti-whaling states emphasise is that even if whaling is apart of a
states cultural heritage, should all cultural traditions be passed down to the next generations? 47
This is reinforced by the arguments from previous countries that participated in whaling who have
moved with the times and ceased whaling many decades ago. 48A counter argument to this of
course is that even if there was a move to have the tradition stopped from being passed down, this
would not mean that the younger generations would agree. This is illustrated in statistics from 2012
features in the Society & Natural resources: An international Journal where the question of
whether artisanal whaling should be maintained was posed to Faroese and Vincentian youth. 49

41

Gillespie, op.cit., p. 374.

Komurcu, M. (2002) Cultural heritage endangered by large dams and its protection under international law.
(archeological sites in Turkey). Wisconsin International Law Journal, 20:2, pp. 233-276.
43
Wagner, op.cit., p. 842.
44
Gillespie, op.cit., p. 355.
45
Wagner, op.cit., p. 847.
46
ibid., p. 849.
47
ibid.
42

48

49

Heptinstall, S. 'When the Sea Foamed Red', Daily Mail (London), 15 September 2003, p. 28.

Fielding, R. (2013) Whaling Futures: A Survey of Faroese and Vincentian Youth on the Topic of Artisanal
Whaling. Society & Natural Resources, 26:7, pp. 818-819.

Student: Sebastian Moore

POLS312: 2500-3000 Word Essay

Word Count: 2703

Although under half, 40% of respondents were hopeful for the continuation of whaling, a relatively
large percentage when considering the notion of discontinuing whaling for cultural purposes.
The second argument anti-whaling states propose is that they too have an equivalent right to culture,
that is a culture that values the preservation of nature, in particular animals. 50 One only needs to
look to the number of preservation programs maintained in countries such as the United States, for
evidence of this developing culture. 51 Apart from these arguments, supporters of the moratorium
on whaling have also sought to justify their case on ethical grounds, such as New Zealand and
Australia who criticise the practice of whaling as being immoral. 52

In deciding which side of the whaling debate in regards to culture is right, one must apply the
breadth of arguments to ethical theory in order to decide which sides arguments are more
persuasive. In essence, utilitarianism establishes whales as having a direct moral standing, and thus
eligible for moral consideration. Utilitarianism as stated before holds that actions are right in
proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of
happiness, with happiness being defined as pleasure, with the absence of pain. 53 Thus no effort is
required that the in maximising happiness and reducing pain, killing of whales for cultural purposes
is wrong, as well as inducing pain for the whale, it does not promote the ideals held by anti-whaling
countries. Thus in order to maximise happiness and reduce pain, the majoritys argument, that is the
anti-whaling countries, and the whales themselves who undoubtedly want to live, should prevail in
this debate. Thus, never can the killing of whales be justified for a cultural purpose.

50

Wagner, op.cit., p. 851.

ibid.
52
ibid.
53
Driver, op.cit.
51

Student: Sebastian Moore

POLS312: 2500-3000 Word Essay

Word Count: 2703

When applying a utilitarian approach to the question of whether the killing of whales be justified if it
serves a cultural purpose, brings forth the chief question of whether the right to culture of tradition
whaling countries is ethically more moral sounding than if the whales were allowed to live. In this
case, when applying a utilitarian approach to this ethical question, the arguments in favour of the
whales outweigh the arguments in favour of the cultural rights of traditional whaling communities to
be catered for.

Student: Sebastian Moore

POLS312: 2500-3000 Word Essay

Word Count: 2703

Bibliography

1. DAmato, A., & Chopra, S. (1991). Whales: Their Emerging Right to Life. American
Journal of International Law, 85:21, 21-737.
2. Beauchamp, T., & Frey, R. (2011). The Oxford handbook of animal ethics. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
3. Bentham, J. (1996). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
4. Carruthers, P. (1992). The Animals Issue: Moral Theory in Practice: Cambridge
University Press.
5. Dombrowski, D. A. (1997). Babies and Beasts: The Argument from Marginal Cases:
University of Illinois Press.
6. Driver, J. (2012). Consequentialism. London: Routledge.
7. Fielding, R. (2013). Whaling Futures: A Survey of Faroese and Vincentian Youth on the
Topic of Artisanal Whaling. Society & Natural Resources, 26:7, 810-826.
8. Garner, R. (2013). A theory of justice for animals : animal rights in a nonideal world,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9. Garner, R. (2011). Animal welfare, ethics and the work of the International Whaling
Commission. Journal of Global Ethics, 7:3, 279-290.
10. Geirsson, H., & Holmgren, M. (2010). Ethical theory : a concise anthology.
Peterborough: Broadview Press.

11. Gillespie, A. (1997). The ethical question in the whaling debate. Georgetown
International Environmental Law Review, 9:2, 355-387.

Student: Sebastian Moore

POLS312: 2500-3000 Word Essay

Word Count: 2703

12. Heptinstall, S. 'When the Sea Foamed Red', Daily Mail (London), 15 September 2003, p. 28.

13. Hodges, B. T. (2000). The cracking facade of the International Whaling Commission as
an institution of international law: Norwegian small-type whaling and the aboriginal
subsistence exemption. Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation, 15:2, 295-328.
14. Hursthouse, R. (2000). Ethics, humans and other animals : an introduction with
readings. London: Routledge.
15. Hursthouse, R. (2001). On virtue ethics. Oxford [England]: Oxford England: Oxford
University Press.
16. Hursthouse, R. (2007) Enviromental Virtue Ehtics Walker, R., & Ivanhoe, P. Working
virtue : virtue ethics and contemporary moral problems, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
17. Hursthouse, R. (2007) Law, Morality and Virtue Walker, R., & Ivanhoe, P. Working
virtue : virtue ethics and contemporary moral problems, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
18. International Whaling Commission. (1946). International Convention for the
Regulation of Whaling, Schedule,
http://iwc.int/private/downloads/1lv6fvjz06f48wc44w4s4w8gs/Schedule-February2013.pdf (accessed 15 May 2014).
19. International Whaling Commission. ( n.d.). Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling,
http://iwc.int/aboriginal (accessed 15 May 2014).
20. Komurcu, M. (2002). Cultural heritage endangered by large dams and its protection
under international law.(archeological sites in Turkey). Wisconsin International Law
Journal, 20:2, 233-296.
21. Rawls, J. (2009). A Theory of Justice: Harvard University Press.

22. Scarff, J. E. (1977). The International Management of Whales, Dolphins and Porpoises:
An Interdisciplinary Assessment: University of California, School of Law.

Student: Sebastian Moore

POLS312: 2500-3000 Word Essay

Word Count: 2703

23. Smith, K., & Light, M. (2001). Ethics and foreign policy. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
24. Timmons, M. (2014). Disputed moral issues : a reader: New York: Oxford University
Press.
25. Wagner, D. (2004). Competing cultural interests in the whaling debate: an exception
to the universality of the right to culture. Transnational Law & Contemporary
Problems, 14:2, 831.
26. Walker, R., & Ivanhoe, P. (2007). Working virtue : virtue ethics and contemporary moral
problems. Oxford: Clarendon Press.