A NZ protester this week boarded a Japanese whaling vessel. His intent was to make a citizen's arrest as well as to present the captain of the vessel with a bill for an odd $3 million. It was a very provocative act which was intended to attract international condemnation of Japanese whaling. Has the action achieved its objective. The NZ anti-whaling campaigner was Peter Bethune, who was the skipper of the high-speed Sea Shepherd, which the Japanese whaling ship had previously sunk off NZ. The problem of course is that this is the second incident that both parties have been engaged. In both cases, it was the NZ captain who was engaging in the provocative act. Perhaps he was thinking that it takes such acts to achieve 'noble goals'. After all it was not many decades ago that women were taking such provocative steps to achieve their goals. Fortunately for them, the people and government came to see the virtues of their argument. Is anyone going to agree with the actions of this captain, or has he over-stepped his mark.
This is an interesting case because it will be interesting to see how the Japanese government deal with the issue. Normally I would expect the Japanese government to be rather aggressive in their condemnation of this person, but consider this - this is an important election year. Is this the time of year the Japanese government wants to fight a battle over whaling? I wonder whether Japanese protests will arise to defend the New Zealander? Whales are kinda cute. Might Japanese environmentalists come out? The Japanese are not exactly the most aggressive lobbyists. They might however have some sympathy for this protester.
More likely however the affair will be simply a court issue, and the Japanese court will sentence this guy, and a deal will be done after the election to bring him back to NZ. It was a pretty stupid act. Its hard to know which group has more conceptual aptitude - the animal rights activists or the brutes who would treat animals cruelly for no good reason.
Animals do not have rights simply because they feel pain. This man's values appear to be the sad manifestation of the philosophy of Peter Singer. Animals of course feel pain, as anyone who has heard a squeeling dog or cat, but that does not mean they are worthy of political protection from men, or if you take the argument that humans are morally responsible for animals, protection from other animals. There is a deeper philosophical flaw involved in these arguments which I will convey in my following eBook on animal rights. Regardless, I am thankful for the publicity at this time. I hope its a long court case.
Did it occur to these lobbyists that animals kill each other. Reflection on that point of fact might highlight in their minds the errors in their philosophical integrity. The deeper flaw will be apparent in my philosophical critique.
Read more: http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/309249,new-zealand-condemns-activist-who-boarded-japanese-whaler--summary.html#ixzz0fgcTHZiM
This is an interesting case because it will be interesting to see how the Japanese government deal with the issue. Normally I would expect the Japanese government to be rather aggressive in their condemnation of this person, but consider this - this is an important election year. Is this the time of year the Japanese government wants to fight a battle over whaling? I wonder whether Japanese protests will arise to defend the New Zealander? Whales are kinda cute. Might Japanese environmentalists come out? The Japanese are not exactly the most aggressive lobbyists. They might however have some sympathy for this protester.
More likely however the affair will be simply a court issue, and the Japanese court will sentence this guy, and a deal will be done after the election to bring him back to NZ. It was a pretty stupid act. Its hard to know which group has more conceptual aptitude - the animal rights activists or the brutes who would treat animals cruelly for no good reason.
Animals do not have rights simply because they feel pain. This man's values appear to be the sad manifestation of the philosophy of Peter Singer. Animals of course feel pain, as anyone who has heard a squeeling dog or cat, but that does not mean they are worthy of political protection from men, or if you take the argument that humans are morally responsible for animals, protection from other animals. There is a deeper philosophical flaw involved in these arguments which I will convey in my following eBook on animal rights. Regardless, I am thankful for the publicity at this time. I hope its a long court case.
Did it occur to these lobbyists that animals kill each other. Reflection on that point of fact might highlight in their minds the errors in their philosophical integrity. The deeper flaw will be apparent in my philosophical critique.
Read more: http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/309249,new-zealand-condemns-activist-who-boarded-japanese-whaler--summary.html#ixzz0fgcTHZiM
