Are we moraly wrong?

[Wy Renegade]

I have seen the cove myself and can't imagine that anyone could watch the whole scale brutal slaughter shown, and not feel a little horrified by it.

That said however, I have no issue with the keeping of pets, raising of domestic animals for food, and even the hunting of wild game for population management. While some are horrified to see the poor buffalo or elk of Yellowstone or other areas being shot, I believe that we as humans, because we have eliminated the natural predators of these animals have a moral obligation to manage their populations and prevent them from dying from starvation. Which is more ethical or morally right; to make their death quick and painless, or to allow them to slowly starve? In truth, most of what we consider to be wild animal populations both here and in other countries are populations of animals that are regulated and controlled by some government agency.

Marine animals on the other hand are not being managed, we are simply eliminating them. How is the killing of the dolphins any different than the slaughtering of 1000s of sharks for their fins, or the killing of whales for oil, or tuna for tuna fish, or sailfins for sport or sea turtles for their shells, or seahorses for their dried skeletal remains? And how is this different than the killing of terrestrial animals for similar reasons purposes? The populations of terrestrial animals are managed to ensure their long term survival. Populations of marine animals are not, and that is were I feel that we've failed in our moral obligation. JMO

[MABJ]

Originally Posted by LyndaB

I believe it is cowardly. To me personally, that represents that they are doing it because they can. You may feel free to use another word to represent your own thoughts, but please leave mine as they are written. Thanks.

You're welcome. Welcome to quit being snide.

They obviously have reasons behind doing it. Not because they can. I squish ants because I can. There is no reason behind it. That is cowardly. Whether its for food, experimentation or pest control, as long as they have a valid reason for doing it and aren't endangering the overall species, cowardly doesn't define -- in any way shape or form -- what they are doing.

I don't condone it; especially in large numbers behind that.

Until we have all the facts, or personally speak to people doing it. We shouldn't be judging.

Thanks.

[MABJ]

Originally Posted by Wy Renegade

I have seen the cove myself and can't imagine that anyone could watch the whole scale brutal slaughter shown, and not feel a little horrified by it.

That said however, I have no issue with the keeping of pets, raising of domestic animals for food, and even the hunting of wild game for population management. While some are horrified to see the poor buffalo or elk of Yellowstone or other areas being shot, I believe that we as humans, because we have eliminated the natural predators of these animals have a moral obligation to manage their populations and prevent them from dying from starvation. Which is more ethical or morally right; to make their death quick and painless, or to allow them to slowly starve? In truth, most of what we consider to be wild animal populations both here and in other countries are populations of animals that are regulated and controlled by some government agency.

Marine animals on the other hand are not being managed, we are simply eliminating them. How is the killing of the dolphins any different than the slaughtering of 1000s of sharks for their fins, or the killing of whales for oil, or tuna for tuna fish, or sailfins for sport or sea turtles for their shells, or seahorses for their dried skeletal remains? And how is this different than the killing of terrestrial animals for similar reasons purposes? The populations of terrestrial animals are managed to ensure their long term survival. Populations of marine animals are not, and that is were I feel that we've failed in our moral obligation. JMO

I like how you said all this.

I will note, we eliminated buffalo -- for fun. But yes, we control the population now.

I completely agree. Internationally, there need to be initiatives to ensure survival of all marine species.

I've scuba dived with sea turtles, swam with sharks and snorkeled reefs. The ocean is beautiful. Harvest is inevitable, but it should be controlled

[NoMoreGoldFish]

Is slaughtering dolphins really an immoral act? What if we humans need to slaughter dolphins to keep fish population up, so there's food for people to eat? At least the dolphins have enjoyed a relatively good life. Farmed animals are often born, raised in terrible conditions, live for a few weeks or months, then are slaughtered, never having a chance to experience nature.

If you think fish keeping is immoral, you should consider what you're putting on your dinner plate first.

P.S. I don't eat meat, but I do eat brainless animals like oysters, clams, mussels, etc. LOL.

[KatieJ]

The cetacean slaughters that go on in Japan are mostly based off of the notion that dolphins and whales are "pests" and "eat too much fish", so they go by the logic that killing off large numbers of them will save more fish. Yet it's completely skewed, for which species was there first? Which species is responsible for overfishing stocks into near depletion? The argument that dolphins are "eating too many fish" is completely invalid because the ratio of predator to prey here isn't nearly enough to put even a dent in fish populations.

"The Cove" is an extremely biased movie in this sense, because they rarely mention it, blaming the slaughter entirely on the grounds that it's a money-maker for public zoos and aquariums that want more dolphins. Which is completely untrue save for a FEW run-down parks in various parts of Asia; the US and many, many countries in Europe have outlawed importing captured cetaceans for years now.

That said, a lot of people protest the slaughters because cetaceans, unlike domesticated food-animals, aren't plentiful. Many species of dolphins have their numbers estimated based on individual populations and communities, rather than just the species as a whole. Japan has driven many populations of bottlenose, Striped, Risso's, and Pacific white-sided dolphins, as well as Dall's Porpoises, Short-finned and Long-finned Pilot whales, Melon-headed whales, False Killer Whales, Killer Whales, and Pygmy Killer Whales from its coastal waters and has to look further and further in the open ocean each time they hunt. Cetaceans don't breed quickly and frequently like pigs do, so they struggle to make up these lost numbers more often - whereas fish can just spawn and spawn and lay hundreds of eggs since their lives are relatively short-lived.

It's also, sadly, hard to kill a dolphin or small whale quickly. Japanese fishermen claim that the metal spikes they drive through the animals' backs kills them instantly, but it doesn't - they end up dying several minutes later from shock, blood loss, or drowning.

[GodFan]

I dont see killing whales or dolphins for useful purpose (food, oil , ect) as immoral IF it is done in moderation and humanely.
Onto keeping fish in fish tanks. I think is is morally acceptable if they are cared for correctly. If you keep them in an environment that is clean and large enough and meet theoir specific needs so they appear happy to the best of your knowledge then I think it is fine.

[siva]

Originally Posted by MABJ

You're welcome. Welcome to quit being snide.

They obviously have reasons behind doing it. Not because they can. I squish ants because I can. There is no reason behind it. That is cowardly. Whether its for food, experimentation or pest control, as long as they have a valid reason for doing it and aren't endangering the overall species, cowardly doesn't define -- in any way shape or form -- what they are doing.

I don't condone it; especially in large numbers behind that.

Until we have all the facts, or personally speak to people doing it. We shouldn't be judging.

Thanks.

I think we all have the right to voice our opinions here and it would really be lovely if we could have this conversation w/o attacking or getting snarky with eachother.

Originally Posted by mfdrookie516

How is that any different than killing ants, pet birds, mice?

I wouldn't want to see any of those creatures in pain either.

[Mumma.of.two]

Originally Posted by jetajockey

Its just a weird argument to me. Pigs are crazy smart and closely related to us, at least enough to use some of their organs for transplant, but I love me some bacon.

Yes, but they are breed for the purpose and kill in a humane way. Not harpooned and left to bleed to death. Don't get me wrong, I eat meat, I just don't see the point of eating certain animals when there are others out there being bred and raised for that purpose. I believe the more intelligent the animal, the more it feels in the way of pain and emotions. It might not be correct by that's what I think.

[jetajockey]

I understand your position, I don't like to see dolphins or whales get slaughtered either. I just wanted to point out that there are other smart animals that we have no issue making steaks out of.

I think that the definition of 'humane' or the standard of it definitely varies by culture.

[TheCrazyFishLady]

This discussion reminds me to what people had previously done in the South with trying to kill off gar. The assumption was that they were eating all of the trophy fish. There is still a huge bias against them. I have heard of lots and lots of people just killing them and refusing to eat the meat because they are just "trash fish".

[siva]

I do have an issue with the way some of it is done. I really try to buy meat and other animal products from farms with practices I personally agree with. I think a lot of the time we don't show the deserved respect to that which gives us life.

[jetajockey]

Originally Posted by TheCrazyFishLady

This discussion reminds me to what people had previously done in the South with trying to kill off gar. The assumption was that they were eating all of the trophy fish. There is still a huge bias against them. I have heard of lots and lots of people just killing them and refusing to eat the meat because they are just "trash fish".

The same thing happened with Tarpon as well, they were a prized trophy/food fish and today they are still considered sport fish but no one would even think about eating one.

[Mumma.of.two]

Originally Posted by jetajockey

I understand your position, I don't like to see dolphins or whales get slaughtered either. I just wanted to point out that there are other smart animals that we have no issue making steaks out of.

I think that the definition of 'humane' or the standard of it definitely varies by culture.

I probably didn't make myself clear enough anyway in my first statement. Was quite late at night over here. (that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it :p).

I do agree that the definition is different in each culture but I'd like to think that Japan is a modern enough country to use humane methods. Maybe they are just using culture as their excuse to do what they do to those poor animals.

[NYgiantsRP]

I think if you do it humanely, using the meat and what not, for good use, and arent endangering the spiecies than there isnt anything wrong with it.

If those dolphins could catch a whole bunch of humans to eat them and strengthen there spiecies dont you think they would?

[fishboy87]

Originally Posted by Mumma.of.two

Yes, but they are breed for the purpose and kill in a humane way. Not harpooned and left to bleed to death. Don't get me wrong, I eat meat, I just don't see the point of eating certain animals when there are others out there being bred and raised for that purpose. I believe the more intelligent the animal, the more it feels in the way of pain and emotions. It might not be correct by that's what I think.

My point exactly....

[MrPillow]

Originally Posted by siva

I wouldn't want to see any of those creatures in pain either.

Where do you draw the line of what a "creature" is? What about the millions upon millions of harmless microorganisms every pool owner destroys by chlorinating their pool? Do they harbor the same rights as an ant? Does the ant harbor the same rights as a human? If not, why so? Not trying to pick bones, just pointing something out for consideration.

Originally Posted by jetajockey

The same thing happened with Tarpon as well, they were a prized trophy/food fish and today they are still considered sport fish but no one would even think about eating one.

The reason tarpon are not consumed on a regular basis are that a) they are an extremely bony fish, and extracting much useful meat from a specimen would be an extremely tiresome, tedious and unproductive process and b) people feel compelled to help preserve their populations by practicing strict catch and release regiments, tarpon were SEVERELY overfished (and killed, mind you) in previous decades.

Originally Posted by Scouser

"Morality and ethicality" are what a person decides for themselves really

A fallacy if I have ever heard one that greatly contradicts with the known intuitions of humanity. If indeed morality is simply a matter of opinion and subject to only the individual harboring the sentiment, then we as persons would be required to be infallible in our moral judgements. It is a key feature of our intuitions about morality that it is possible to be mistaken in our moral judgments. We might, for example, judge that a killing is morally wrong only to find out that the killing was done in self-defense and thus is morally permissible. We can be mistaken. It would be the height of arrogance to think that we are infallible in our moral judgments. If morality were indeed a simple matter of personal opinion, it would be theoretically impossible to engage in disagreements regarding morality with other persons, only disagreements of temperament which could produce no learned knowledge from the discussion. If we were indeed infallible in our moral convictions, no amount of evidence prevented in any manner whatsoever could ever change our outlook on a specific situation. Morality is not a subjective matter, one that is closed to public discussion and debate. If it were, society would never have formed on this planet.

[torstar]

I don't think that keeping fish is immoral. If the owner is serious about what he/she is doing and is reasonably educated about how to care for them. Or taking steps to learn how to. Think of it as you are (probably) extending thier lives compared to them living in the wild. I myself keep freshwater fish, mostly live bearers so i know that they have never swam in "free" waters. I like to think of it as a mini zoo in my house...now if i could only figure out a way to charge admission to my friends who like to check them out ; )

[Terrance]

Originally Posted by fishboy87

I just saw the movie Cove.... I witnessed one of the most devasting acts of human...Dolphins arebeing slaughtered from September-March... It's obvious that that's moraly wrong..... My question is, are we moraly wrong for having fish in aquariums when we know that it's not thier natural habitat?

Easy answer: the fish we are keeping lives a longer, safer life in captivity (assuming the keeper is not an idiot and has done the research), so you're doing them a favor.


Happy fish keeping


Everyone has their opinion about dolphins, monkeys, and wombs.