1

Alex Kollar

Mike Joyce

Diane Hernandez

5 December 2016

Case Study #4

An Ethical Analysis of Blackfish: The Deontological Approach

We believe that as Christian stewards of the Earth, that we have at least an ethical

obligation to non-humans. The routine mistreatment of the orca whales by Sea World, animals

that are highly intelligent and complex, is completely unacceptable. Sea World has exploited orca

whales for half a century. Their exploitation has led to the deaths of many orca whales as well as

a number of different humans who have fallen victim to the orcas actions.

Capturing orca whales is a horrible and bloody process that entails lowering nets down

into the water and eventually separating the smallest whales from the larger ones. The capturing

process is followed by the transportation of the newly acquired whale to Sea World. At Sea

World the orcas are put into small cement pools with other orcas who are not of their pod. Since

orcas are highly intelligent and social animals, being placed into a pool with other orcas from

different pods leads to solitary lives. Many experts also believe that putting an orca in a cement

pool renders the whale deaf. Since its echolocation skills are thwarted by the concrete, the sound

waves, which normally pass through ocean waters, instead bounce off the walls.

Orcas in captivity also experience physical ailments that orcas do not encounter in the

wild. In the wild, whales travel around 100 miles a day with their pod, which remains intact for
 2

the duration of each members life. While in captivity, anywhere from 60 to 90 percent of orcas

develop a physical ailment that manifests itself in a dorsal fin collapse, a pathology directly

linked to confinement. Orcas also have much longer lifespans in the wild than they do in

captivity. In the wild, orcas live about 30-50 years, whereas in captivity their lifespan shortens

significantly. Captive orcas are known to die from the stress of boredom, depression, bacterial

infections, tainted food and aggression from other orcas.

These are the facts, it has been proven that captivity is cruel and life-threatening for the

orcas. The cruel captivity that the orcas face brings about many different moral questions. The

first question being, Do we have a moral obligation to non-human creatures? Subsequently,

this question will lead to many other questions. One of these questions is, If we do have a moral

obligation to animals, how far does this obligation extend? To address these questions, we turn

to the deontological theory of morality.

Immanuel Kant defends deontological ethics in his work titled, The Good Will and the

Categorical Imperative. In this essay, he claims that truly good actions come from a good

will. A persons good will, Kant claims, is based solely on a societys categorical imperative,

the unspoken moral law that stands to define each persons actions. Kants main point form his

analysis is that our good will, or conscience, comes from our sense of duty to uphold the

categorical imperative. He also states that even if a persons actions may be defined as good on

a superficial level, like giving candy to child to make them happy, those actions may still be

fundamentally contrary to the categorical imperative which might be: candy is bad for kids

because it causes cavities, so its better to not give children candy.

As stated previously, Kants whole theory is based on an acknowledged moral law, but

for those who object to this theory, the weaknesses of this foundation are exploited and
 3

questioned. For an action to be judged, there must be a clear law but in his works, Kant never

explicitly states what the categorical imperative is. While we agree that there must be a strictly

define imperative for this system of ethics to work, we propose that a moral code or law is

always interpreted differently from person to person and culture to culture. For our specific

analysis and application of Kants arguments, we base our law on biblical truths.

In Genesis 1:31, it states that, God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was

very good (ESV) and earlier, Genesis 1:26 reads, Then God said, Let us make man in our

image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds

of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that

creeps on the earth (ESV). From these main verses we interpret a categorical imperative that

declares a moral duty to protect and respect the creatures of this world; including orca whales.

Referring back to the case of the Sea World whales, mainly the film Blackfish, Kants

explanation will allow us to look at the actions of the trainers and company and judge them on a

greater moral scale. In the film, the trainers would continually say that would try to do whats

best for the whales and create a livable and positive environment. In their testimonies, it seemed

that they had created an emotional connection to the whales that clouded their view of the greater

imperative of granting the whales complete freedom in the wild. Just like how giving children

candy seemed like a positive action, the trainers wanted to believe that keeping and training the

whales was just as good. While it could be argued that holding the trainers to a biblical standard

of stewards to the whales, we argue that it is that underlying duty bestowed upon humanity that

fuels the trainers clearly stated desire for the whales happiness; they felt it was their

responsibility to care for the whales. Even so, Kant would not categorize their actions as innately
 4

good because they reinforced a imperative that was contrary to the higher law of caring for the

earths creatures.

In looking at what was said earlier, for an action to be judged, there must be a clear law

we proposed that a moral code or law is always interpreted differently from person to person and

culture to culture. Objections could be made such as looking this situation through a different

moral law code, that of which that this facility is not in any way restricting or hurting the whales

but as said before looking out for their own well being. Some would say that by keeping these

orcas in captivity is looking out for their well being, they are maintained in clean water and not

exposed to possible population or dump from the ocean. Arguing that trainers felt this

responsibility to do good for the whales and care for them, could also very well not be entirely

true. While there are many trainers who in fact did or have developed strong relationships with

the orcas, then could also be those who in fact see the whales as just another part of the

attraction. So instead of looking out for the greater good these animals, in fact they do not hold

this moral law to hold true. Now in response to the matter of in order to define someones actions

as morally good or not, then we must then have moral law to refer to we must take this into

consideration. Ones definition of what is good, and what is best in this case for the whales varies

on beliefs in which a person has.

Our position on this matter has been viewed through our thinking as Christians and

referring back to the biblical truths in which we stand on. God gave man the responsibility to

care for all animals, as we see in Genesis 2:19 (NIV) Now the LORD God had formed out of

the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see

what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

Referring back to mentioning that as humans we are in fact called to protect and respect the
 5

creatures God created, just as he created us in his likeness. By keeping these animals who were

made to be in the wild, and constricting them to live in the way in which they were created to.

Just as we are called to love our neighbors as ourselves, we in fact are called to love and care for

all animals, Psalm 50:10 (NIV) "For every beast of the forest is Mine, The cattle on a thousand

hills. "I know every bird of the mountains, And everything that moves in the field is Mine. We

can then discuss and examine others actions by means of standing on biblical truth, considering

to be the clear law.