Mass Killing of Dolphins (Kindly Watch This)

[elroy15]

---

ka.luoy!!!!

[brownprose]

exactly. very good point sir, what is the difference between the dolphins, whales with the lower life forms. because if we do not make any difference at all, then we would should be, under the guise of life-form rights to be wearing gauze and filter mask inorder not to kill microorganism by breathing. This is where science helps ethics, such that science provides ethics the data on the developed brain functions of certain animals that determines certain qualities such as the the feeling and cognition of pain, suffering (not in the basic level as merely constituting a stimulus response but something higher) that is equal to say the least to the lowest form of human consciousness - the senile old man across the street.

It is better said than done The_Child. Lower life forms possess different physical and neurological properties. The development of the brain alone do not establish their inherent value. Octopi for example are probably the only animals with high level of inductive and problem solving skills among the invertebrates or even when compared to some mammals.

Talk about pain cognition -- how do you ascertain the level of pain suffered by whales and pigs? What sort of standards are we going to adopt to test pain cognition? Scientists will never have a way of knowing. Animals manifest different ways/reactions of showing pain. You can't compare the reaction of the whales/dolphins to be the same level of reaction for the roach or those chickens on John's backyard?

It may be possible but highly improbable...and at best very impractical.

Can you just imagine The_Child how many species we have to test just to really establish their intelligence and pain cognition? We all know in basic taxonomy that there are at least five regnum in Biology. How do you wish the testing to proceed to find that inherent value of lower life forms knowing that there are at least 30M species so far? Even if we have to narrow down the tests to the animal kingdom alone how many animals does one biologist have to test to establish that inherent value?

(Don't you think it's also unfair that we exclude non-pain sufferers/less intelligent life forms while we spare the corals and the mangroves?)

And by the time we're done testing all of them (not to mention the money involved in the experiments), the whales would have been probably extinct by then.

here is the link. if dolphins are slaughtered purely because of utilitarian reasons market forces, and if assuming, (i could not verify the text because it is back in my study at home and im way way way away from my study; perhaps somebody could corroborate this, but the text or the list states a comparative anatomy of the brains of vertebrates and mollusks and their brain functions in regards to feeling) that they have that basic consciousness of feeling, suffering, etc. like that of the lowest human consciousness - senile folks , then we would also have the justification to kill old men because they are useless in society and adds to the liability of state resources and economic appropriation. i believe if only we are willing to do the latter then it would be clear in our conscience to do the former. (this is merely one among many repercussions to a utilitarian point of view)

You're taking utilitarianism to its extreme ... like everybody has to go through preventive appendectomy as the state finds no need for your appendix anyway. Just to remind you, I don't posit a utilitarian regime as the silver bullet to the world's problem. Point is...there's no faster and more expedient way to saving the whales/dolphins than in their utilitarian purview in which I have provided you some scientific references to establish their importance in the long term.

yes. thats why we dont just present them in a crash course of what deontology is, that is why we go to the State and offer a justification for state action. (this is more tricky, because deontology in terms of human to human relation has a simple method of convincing in the basic level, appealing to the them as the same with the other human being who is the subject of the action - appeal to making them realize they are merely one among other human beings and that such an action could also occur to you, in this animal issue it is different because they are animals)

The_Child, Deontology is just too good to be true. Candidly, it is highly theoretical/debatable/academic and wasteful. As I have said, policy-makers do not have time to establish the inherent value of animals nor the time to waste to convince people with such vague ethical concepts knowing their individual concepts of morality.

There's no better way of seeing the massive whale/dolphin slaughter than their repercussions to the environment. Scientists have established those facts already The_Child...and policy-makers are more keen to this side of the story than go nuts debating the ethics of it.

A parallel campaign using ethics/animal rights as an argument may be done on the sides. But as a main theme/battlecry to save the whales or the dolphins...no thank you.

then it would become a matter of ethical debate. the dialogue here is not between an ethicist to the whaling community, no because the gap of interaction is wide. rather, it is a dialogue between ethicist-ethicist-government-whaling community. An ethicist could not, i repeat just go to whaling company and lecture on ethics, that would be absurd, even if i was the CEO, i would have him kicked out already from my company. thus the prudent action, i think, is for this justification to be transmitted to the State or to a Supra- State: UN, to obligate them for intervention. That is how pressure-groups works, although their agenda may be different from this issue, such as feminine rights or what, they go to the state bearing with them certain theses or justification for such Legislations and State Intervention to be done. but im not necessarily saying we should act like a pressure group,all im saying this is how it is legally done.
Unlike others, who go to the extreme: Eco-terrorism - when tree-huggers gone bad.

As I have said...on the sides, YES. On the debating floor maybe...but more likely a NO. I'm not saying governments or governing bodies like the UN do not like your idea. Inherent value/Deontology just DOESN'T SELL. Look, there are at least a dozen countries involved in whaling and argued strongly on the grounds of sovereignty. Do you think these countries would just nod their heads and throw their nets, give up their trade and rights over their oceans in the name of inherent value or deontology? Of course not. You gotta say something better than that. Besides, these countries are mature enough to know what is best for their country in terms of values/ethics. To tell them that whaling is unethical is like saying they are barbaric.

case of deontology. im just stating that as an alternative to the utilitarian view that was ballyhooed here. there are always two cases of looking at an issue, an inherent value or a purpose. The former is deontology or internal and the latter external perspepective in ethics. The former does something ethical because it is 'good' for no other reason. the latter does an action because of certain external conditions: usefulness, under the pain of punishment, etc. e.g jaywalking. either i do not jay walk because i believe it is inherently bad, breaking the law by walking across the street is bad no matter what (deontological), the other: i will not cross the street because i do not want to pay 50 freakin pesos as a fine. (external). thats just an example. in illustrating the two perspective.
and i dont think there is a need for historical justifications.

Point well taken.

a moral absolutist in such a sense, since actions are not dependent on situations and context. it is universal-izable. it goes beyond time and culture. some old people in philo calls it the categorical imperative. it is transcultural. which unlike utilitarianism is dependent on the circumstances surrounding the issue, the same with situational ethics.

Just that it cannot justify the constraints. But that's off topic.

treaties afterall are just conventional laws. a treaty here does not obligate parties not bound within the treaty making it non-universal-izable. to assume a right would make it more problematic so lets not go there, suffice to say that: i think it is precisely because deontology is an obligation do what is right because it is right. you do it because it is good in itself and for no other reason. To say disrespect is an understatement. its like saying i kill my aunt therefore i disrespect her life - no, i think its more than just disrespect. on regards to the inherent value, i mentioned it above.
cheers!

You're taking treaties out of context The_Child. Treaties do not connote to be naturally universal in application. A treaty is just a tool in foreign policy between or among nations. But treaties CAN UNIVERSALIZE human acts/behavior.

In fact, The General Agreement on Tariff and Trade has proven to be the most universal manifestation of man's collective desire to openly do business with one another. Other "universalizations" include The International Declaration of Human Rights, The Kyoto Protocal and the Rio Declaration among others.

What about deontology, can you please tell me if there's such a convincing example where one deontological ethics was universalized?

The Rio Declaration alone covers issues on the Convention for Biodiversity. So you already have a framework to save the whales without struggling to push a theoretical idea such as deontology, inherent value and all which are impractical at the moment and have yet to find its place in the global community.

So between your inherent value/deontology and their Convention for Biodiversity do you still think you have a room? Think again.

[Princess08]

ka mean oi!! pwede mag MASS KILLING sa mga ni harm sa dolphins!

i mean look at them.. louy kaayo! dolphins are even harmless! those people are not humans.. where are their heart.. i cant even finish one video! i pity those people! maka hilak jud ko mag-tan-aw sa ilang buhat! unsa nalang kahay gaba ani nilang tawhana!!
this totally ruined my day!

[The_Child]

It is better said than done The_Child. Lower life forms possess different physical and neurological properties. The development of the brain alone do not establish their inherent value. Octopi for example are probably the only animals with high level of inductive and problem solving skills among the invertebrates or even when compared to some mammals.

Talk about pain cognition -- how do you ascertain the level of pain suffered by whales and pigs? What sort of standards are we going to adopt to test pain cognition? Scientists will never have a way of knowing. Animals manifest different ways/reactions of showing pain. You can't compare the reaction of the whales/dolphins to be the same level of reaction for the roach or those chickens on John's backyard?

It may be possible but highly improbable...and at best very impractical.

Can you just imagine The_Child how many species we have to test just to really establish their intelligence and pain cognition? We all know in basic taxonomy that there are at least five regnum in Biology. How do you wish the testing to proceed to find that inherent value of lower life forms knowing that there are at least 30M species so far? Even if we have to narrow down the tests to the animal kingdom alone how many animals does one biologist have to test to establish that inherent value?

(Don't you think it's also unfair that we exclude non-pain sufferers/less intelligent life forms while we spare the corals and the mangroves?)

And by the time we're done testing all of them (not to mention the money involved in the experiments), the whales would have been probably extinct by then.



You're taking utilitarianism to its extreme ... like everybody has to go through preventive appendectomy as the state finds no need for your appendix anyway. Just to remind you, I don't posit a utilitarian regime as the silver bullet to the world's problem. Point is...there's no faster and more expedient way to saving the whales/dolphins than in their utilitarian purview in which I have provided you some scientific references to establish their importance in the long term.



The_Child, Deontology is just too good to be true. Candidly, it is highly theoretical/debatable/academic and wasteful. As I have said, policy-makers do not have time to establish the inherent value of animals nor the time to waste to convince people with such vague ethical concepts knowing their individual concepts of morality.

There's no better way of seeing the massive whale/dolphin slaughter than their repercussions to the environment. Scientists have established those facts already The_Child...and policy-makers are more keen to this side of the story than go nuts debating the ethics of it.

A parallel campaign using ethics/animal rights as an argument may be done on the sides. But as a main theme/battlecry to save the whales or the dolphins...no thank you.



As I have said...on the sides, YES. On the debating floor maybe...but more likely a NO. I'm not saying governments or governing bodies like the UN do not like your idea. Inherent value/Deontology just DOESN'T SELL. Look, there are at least a dozen countries involved in whaling and argued strongly on the grounds of sovereignty. Do you think these countries would just nod their heads and throw their nets, give up their trade and rights over their oceans in the name of inherent value or deontology? Of course not. You gotta say something better than that. Besides, these countries are mature enough to know what is best for their country in terms of values/ethics. To tell them that whaling is unethical is like saying they are barbaric.



Point well taken.



Just that it cannot justify the constraints. Especially when these constraints are urgent like the whales/dolphins.



You're taking treaties out of context The_Child. Treaties do not connote to be naturally universal in application. A treaty is just a tool in foreign policy between or among nations. But treaties CAN UNIVERSALIZE human acts/behavior.

In fact, The General Agreement on Tariff and Trade has proven to be the most universal manifestation of man's collective desire to openly do business with one another. Other "universalizations" include The International Declaration of Human Rights, The Kyoto Protocal and the Rio Declaration among others.

What about deontology, can you please tell me if there's such a convincing example where one deontological ethics was universalized?

The Rio Declaration alone covers issues on the Convention for Biodiversity. So you already have a framework to save the whales without struggling to push a theoretical idea such as deontology, inherent value and all which are impractical at the moment and have yet to find its place in the global community.

So between your inherent value/deontology and their Convention for Biodiversity do you still think you have a room? Think again.

1) refer to the issue of killing old men. earlier post. how brain functions are important in establishing guides to an inherent value. its not improbable. the issue is with whales and dolphins. Refer to Mammalian brains, particularly of Dolphins and whales and juxtapose them to the lowest possible brain function of a human being well at least senile men and some mental illnesses.
2) it is still utilitarian. therefore my point here in the first place, to give an alternative.
3.) the efficacy of deontology is again the same with a utilitarian perspective. both are theories, that are extended to practice by policy-makers. how could you even prove that it is non-efficacious? and again, you assume that policy-makers do not use deontological justifications for policy. refer to earlier post when i say you made an unfounded conclusion.

4.) justify the contraints? ? ? ? ? ?

5.) no u misconcieve my point, but anyways, look at those treaties, what are the justification for treaties? look at legal theory, what are justifications in legal theory? besides the framework is merely dependent from a more general framwork.


i have answered most if not all of your question through my earlier posts.

[brownprose]

Refer to the issue of killing old men. earlier post. how brain functions are important in establishing guides to an inherent value. its not improbable. the issue is with whales and dolphins. Refer to Mammalian brains, particularly of Dolphins and whales and juxtapose them to the lowest possible brain function of a human being well at least senile men and some mental illnesses.

Assumption lagi na The_Child. And as I've told you it's impractical...balika basa akong posts...I have made examples para masabtan sa tanan. Balik napod ka ana.


2) it is still utilitarian. therefore my point here in the first place, to give an alternative.

Okay...Case closed.

3.) the efficacy of deontology is again the same with a utilitarian perspective. both are theories, that are extended to practice by policy-makers. how could you even prove that it is non-efficacious? and again, you assume that policy-makers do not use deontological justifications for policy. refer to earlier post when i say you made an unfounded conclusion.

Assumption again. Please read previous post ...focus on the dolphins NOT OTHER THINGS.

4.) justify the contraints? ? ? ? ? ?

...I thought you knew. Mea culpa... that is in fact the greatest flaw/criticism against deontology. Read back your deontology. Don't bother to reply as this is irrelevant to the discussion anyway. Giduka na ang mga readers Case closed.

5.) no u misconcieve my point, but anyways, look at those treaties, what are the justification for treaties? look at legal theory, what are justifications in legal theory? besides the framework is merely dependent from a more general framwork.

Pag sure diha The_Child Previously you were averse to treaties kay according to you di ma universalize...after i have proven you wrong your trying to point napod the general framework of justification. Whose framework, deontology napod? Di gyud ta magdaug...duka na ang uban dire bro...Haay...*sighs* Iclose tani para mahuman..

Anyways...I cannot proceed with this discussion anymore The_Child. I will just let you go on with what you think then i present lang na sa uban istoryans kay I have no time for tautologies...magbalik balik ra gihapon kog explain nimo. So goodluck sa imong imong inherent value, deontology etc... then let me know if it has already reached the attention of the UN.

Thank you.

cheers!

[botslob]

kuyawa ani na thread ui abot naman langit gikan sa dagat hihihihi. daghan na baya to ang example ni brad brownie ngano naman open naman pod nag lain topic si sir the_child. bitaw sakto na imong gibuhat bradix brownie na close nalang na nga discussion kay di gyud mo magdaug ana. gikan langit, basin abot napod mo empyerno ana hihihi

grabiha sa video oi murag lami kaau rakrakan ning mga whale hunters tsk tsk.

[The_Child]

yes, apparently tautologies indeed, as ive said in my previous because the question you keep on asking are questions that were answered in previous posts already.

what is "assumptious" in the first part is not the possible alternative i have given but the conclusion that you have given - impractical. i have stressed them again and again.

i did focus on the dolphins, but the very issue of leads it not merely to dolphins but also to other things. If you do this with this justification, then the same justification applies to another.

you refer "justify the constraints" without elaborating obscure statements while accusing directly the reader of ignorance. interesting. they have a term for that... but anyways.

whoever gave you the impression that i have his aversion to treaties? and i stand by the fact that treaties are mere conventional laws. but i never said i was against it, im just saying that it has certain limitations such as that it has the possibility of not being universalizable - the kyoto protocol is an example.

this has become a tautology i agree, but why this is so is because i keep on repeating what i have answered in different substituted questions you pose. the point is, you do not understand this, in every framework of action lies a general theory. treaties are not the point at the beginning, the point is how you justify your actions in regards to the issue and how you could extend this to the social sphere (it is only here that treaties are efficacious) and treaties are not merely utilitarian in its framework, the IHL(international humanitarian law) is itself based on deontological principles, the Geneva Convention is in itself based on Deontological principles. Why do we protect prisoners? why do we frown on extra-judicial killings? why do we respect the white flag in war? why do we follow "rules of engagement"? these all generally stem from the IHL which is founded on deontological principles.
what is i believe the problem, is perhaps your misconception or a failure to grasp deontology because you are so biased for utilitarianism that you do not even want to open up to the alternative, i am not sticking it down merely asking you to consider the alternative, but no, (clearly seen in your texts) your continually to believe that it is merely a "cute" principle.

FYI, as ive said, after the 1970's the utilitarian view of justice have never come to be the same as it was. That was the year Rawl's published his theory of justice which is very influential in practice. it is totally a deontological perspective in practical concerns specially in political and legal action. i mention this only to prove that deontological principles is not merely cute principles for some pencil-pushing ethicists.


bbut these are margins to my original intentions which precipitated this, my original intentions was too look at the issue as an ethical issue. I have proven my point here, and i have convinced you that t it is an ethical issue. the second intention, was to present a possible alternative. i did that- deontology or looking at dolphins because they have an inherent value to live.

[rodsky]

@Brownprose and The_Child

I guess the "Dolphin" thread is the new "my daily morning cup of coffee" for you guys hahaha

-RODION

[brownprose]

@Brownprose and The_Child

I guess the "Dolphin" thread is the new "my daily morning cup of coffee" for you guys hahaha

-RODION

hahaha...i will just be mum this time bro. enough has been said so i'm taking my coffee break too.

[botslob]

^^ maypa bradix.

gatan-aw ko balik sa video, murag gilami-an man silag kaon. kusog gyud tingali ang demand kay murag apil na na sa ilang diet. asta mga bata ganahan man gani. nindot siguro ni sumsuman hihihihi