Mass Killing of Dolphins (Kindly Watch This)

[The_Child]

---

The_Child: nganong mo iwik man lagi ang baboy kung lubaon? I'm sure naka feel pud na ug pain.

We need to save everything, not just the dolphins, that is vital to our continued existence, whether that be human lives or that of other animals. Nature has always found a way to keep the balance, but humans have become so voracious that nature couldn't do it alone anymore. We must take an active role to ensure harmony in the planet. We cannot keep on taking from the earth, we must give back. Matod pang sngrim, if we keep killing these creatures off one by one, soon enough there'll be nothing left for us to feed on...but each other.

Let's save the dolphins! But let's save the polar bears first! Arctic ice is getting thinner every year, we must figure out how to make them thick again. tsk tsk tsk

yes refer to my post above.

[zurita10]

Pigs, Chickens (you like pork right?).. you name it, some of the pigs are cute too "Babe", what makes the dolphins so special?

And if they get extinct, we could always look for them in books, ohh, we have the internet now, you can always google them.

Human are herbivores? Evolve and grow molar teeth, even in your front teeth. Imagine that.

[brownprose]

there is a difference with the difference of animals. as you can see, dolphins like most mammals, have developed the ability to feel suffering and pain. google it if you want, which is a notch higher than reptilians. also, the dolphin's brain is more developed than other animal species. as ive mentioned earlier, the issue of the dolphins and the senile old man across the street is the same. do we have the right to kill the senile old man because he is no longer contributing to society (economic) ? which is the same way of saying, to we kill dolphins or not because it good for the economy (economic) the question on whether is it moral to do so or not, is no longer asked, because the question has become a problem of economic management.

As I have said, this is not an issue of "what's the difference" between a roach's brain and an ascaris' because it's hard to tell which of these lower life forms feel or think the most. The crux of the matter is whether or not tradition and economics precede wildlife preservation talking about whale-hunting in which the latter is what scientists/environmentalists care the most.

[The_Child]

As I have said, this is not an issue of "what's the difference" between a roach's brain and an ascaris' because it's hard to tell which of these lower life forms feel or think the most. The crux of the matter is whether or not tradition and economics precede wildlife preservation talking about whale-hunting in which the latter is what scientists/environmentalists care the most.

i made my point on that. clearly, an ascaris and a roach are in different league with mammalian brains. and that is just the surface of the issue, what underpin the issue you are talking about are the values that we use to further such actions. your either/or could be subsumed merely as an utilitarian perspective which i pointed out has its repercussions thus the alternative is to look at it not merely from a utilitarian perspective but also looking at its deontological worth.

we do not only have to look at it as such, to do so, there is an alternative, ja. the crux of the issue you so pointed out, is just the surface, i believe. its not merely tradition/eeconmics v. preservation, rather it is utilitarian which subsumes the dialectic you mentioned and that of deontology = purely because the dolphin has a worth in its ownslef and not just beecause it is merely a unit to a system worth protecting.


an analogy might be: a guy is dying but could survive if i help him. my motivation for saving him is not because he is a world-renowned researcher who has discovered the cure for aids, but because him himself, a human being, has worth, which in itself is worth saving. thus equally saying, that if i could help someone who is dying, whether he is a prince or a pauper, i will help him not because of his social statutes or his contribution to society, but because he is like me, has human worth, simply because he is human is enough for me to help him.

[kamote_kid]

Most people have emotional investments to dolphins and whales because these mammals are lovable animals and are endearing to humans hence comes the reactions. I strongly doubt if we can see the same reactions if sharks and crocs are being killed in that way.

[abay_006]

dolphins have 40% larger brain than humans.

[rodsky]

dolphins have 40% larger brain than humans.

Eh? Elephants have 300% larger brains than humans, yet you don't expect them to write a sonnet or play the violin.

What's more important is the proportion of body mass to the brain size.

Species Brain weight Body weight Brain weight
(gram) (tonn) as % of
body weight

Man 1500 0.07 2.1
Bottlenose dolphin 1600 0.17 0.94
Dolphin 840 0.11 0.74
Asian elephant 7500 5.0 0.15
Killer whale 5620 6.0 0.094
Cow 500 0.5 0.1
Pilot whale 2670 3.5 0.076
Sperm whale 7820 37.0 0.021
Fin whale 6930 90.0 0.008
Mouse 0.4 0.000012 3.2

With the exception of a mouse, in relation to body proportion, humans are still on top. But then, who knows, maybe mice are smarter than us (smiles and remembers Douglas Adams).

-RODION

[brownprose]

i made my point on that. clearly, an ascaris and a roach are in different league with mammalian brains. and that is just the surface of the issue, what underpin the issue you are talking about are the values that we use to further such actions. your either/or could be subsumed merely as an utilitarian perspective which i pointed out has its repercussions thus the alternative is to look at it not merely from a utilitarian perspective but also looking at its deontological worth.

we do not only have to look at it as such, to do so, there is an alternative, ja. the crux of the issue you so pointed out, is just the surface, i believe. its not merely tradition/eeconmics v. preservation, rather it is utilitarian which subsumes the dialectic you mentioned and that of deontology = purely because the dolphin has a worth in its ownslef and not just beecause it is merely a unit to a system worth protecting.

an analogy might be: a guy is dying but could survive if i help him. my motivation for saving him is not because he is a world-renowned researcher who has discovered the cure for aids, but because him himself, a human being, has worth, which in itself is worth saving. thus equally saying, that if i could help someone who is dying, whether he is a prince or a pauper, i will help him not because of his social statutes or his contribution to society, but because he is like me, has human worth, simply because he is human is enough for me to help him.

I don't have problems you talking about the more profound side of things -- the philosophical and humane aspects and etc. However, you can't get a biologist or a policy-maker to take that [philosophical] path of yours to make a worthy decision about this issue. They can't afford to just scratch their heads and figure out which branch of philosophy is to be taken to make a good reflection about whether or not to kill the whales.

There is no better or simpler way to appreciate the issue on the whale killings than in their utilitarian view. In fact, the whole environment and wildlife preservation effort is viewed generally as utilitarian. Biologists advocate wildlife preservation to sustain the interaction between humans and his ecosystem. Economists see cost benefit ratios or potential returns of being environment-friendly to sustain economies. Social/political scientists see the critical role of the environment in resource management and distribution, etc...

[Sol_Itaire]

^so the real issue then is preservation, not the manner of killing.

is there really a 'humane' way of killing animals for food?

I'm all the more drawn to the idea of picking ripe fruits off a tree or uprooting tubers from the ground.

[The_Child]

I don't have problems you talking about the more profound side of things -- the philosophical and humane aspects and etc. However, you can't get a biologist or a policy-maker to take that [philosophical] path of yours to make a worthy decision about this issue. They can't afford to just scratch their heads and figure out which branch of philosophy is to be taken to make a good reflection about whether or not to kill the whales.

There is no better or simpler way to appreciate the issue on the whale killings than in their utilitarian view. In fact, the whole environment and wildlife preservation effort is viewed generally as utilitarian. Biologists advocate wildlife preservation to sustain the interaction between humans and his ecosystem. Economists see cost benefit ratios or potential returns of being environment-friendly to sustain economies. Social/political scientists see the critical role of the environment in resource management and distribution, etc...

not necessarily, good sir, because ethics is not purely theoretical. it is practical. what is useful or utilitarian is not necessarily long term, useful, or that it is the best system applicable in policy-making. i admit that it is philosophical, but the thread leads inevitably there: questions on ethics. if your telling me that policy-making is totally ignorant of ethical issues in their perspective field, then i believe, that your wrong.

And i disagree that the utilitarian view is the best way to appreciate the view, simple,perhaps, but the best view? i beg to differ. The idea of taking animals, in this case, dolphins and whales having rights that is inherent in them and not just taking them as purely utilitarian is shared not only in the discipline of philosophy, but also in professional ethics: Bioethics, applied ethics, environmental ethics, etc... if you ask a tree-hugger, why he wants to hug trees and save their barks, it either boils down to two, granting that he is not a nutcase; utilitarian/teleological which most of you folks here try to look at, or internal/deontological.

take "my" philosophical path, please i dont deserve to be labeled with the ownership of that. FYI, the idea of utilitarian ethics in policy, political science, jurisprudence, is quite obsolete. all though there are usual recurrent of it, it has never been the same after 1950. the idea of distributive justice brought about in 1950 truncated the notion that justice is for what is most useful in society - this is of course in response to your saying that the philosophical or humane way does not motivate policy-making, because it is the very opposite of it. policy-making is based on principles, principles that are formulated in philosophy.

this is one often is being misconstrued, that philosophy is purely detach from the world, which is not so, rather, it is philosophy that makes the world go round. same goes here, when you seem to imply that the philosophical path is akin to BS when it comes to policy-making, which if i may give a very fervent "no" that is not so.

so see, how important philosophy is, in policy-making. i hope you do not look at philosophy as purely plato-aristotle-socrates kinda stereotype they teach in local or even the universities in the country, because most of the anglo-saxon world looks at philosophy very differently.