Can Moral Theory Solve The Issue And Controversy Of Grindadràp (whale Hunting)?

Whaling is a controversial practise, and grindadr p is no exception. Grindadr p is the local name that sees the people of the Faroe Islands, a self-governing archipelago under Denmark, hunt long-finned pilot whales as well as other species of cetaceans such as bottlenose dolphins, white-sided dolphins and Risso s dolphins .[1] Locals claim that grindadr p is an important source of food for the Faroese people. Moreover, locals argue that the hunt is of traditional and cultural significance too, as grindadr p has been carried out for around 1,000 years.[2] However, animal rights activists argue that the hunt is cruel, outdated and also unnecessary.[3] Increased media coverage has placed grindadr p into the international spotlight, which illustrates the ethical imperativeness of the topic. Grindadr p raises important ethical issues, related to environmentalism, conservationism and animal welfare. However, this hunt is highly complex and it would appear that a single ethical framework cannot solve the controversy of grindadr p. This will be revealed by examining the difficulties of applying ethics in a postmodern era. The notion of ought will also be analysed, as well as illustrating the issues that arise from attempting to solve this controversy within the conventional framework of traditional ethical systems. However, this piece will finish by arguing that by looking at the widespread impact grindadr p has, it should be allowed to continue. This will be explored in greater detail.

Grindadr p began to receive a lot of international media attention in the 1980s, when Paul Watson the founder of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) began to shed light on the hunt.[4] However, a lot of the SSCS actions in attempting to prevent whale hunting has been controversial. For example, in 2013, a US court ruled that SSCS were pirates , after the society deliberately crashed boats into whale hunting boats off the coast of Japan.[5] Moreover, numerous activists have been arrested by the Faroese authorities, after trying to interfere and prevent grindadr p from taking place.[6] However, despite the controversy, animal rights activist groups such as SSCS has increased the international attention that grindadr p receives. Many journalists and reporters have now shed light on the hunt, including Stacey Dooley, who released a BBC documentary about grindadr p in the early stages of 2020.[7]

An overview of grindadr p is essential, because a large amount of the ethical controversy stems from the specific practises of the hunt. Grindadr p is not exclusive to a particular season or date, as the hunt can take place at any time.[8] When a pod of whales or dolphins have been spotted, they alert the sysselmann the head of police and administrator of grindadr p.[9] The hunt cannot legally take place without the approval of the sysselmann. This approval is contingent on two things. Firstly, the weather conditions have to be suitable.[10] Secondly, the species of whale or dolphin spotted, cannot be internationally recognised as endangered .[11] Once approval is given, locals use their boats to herd the animals onto one of the shores of the 26 legally approved bays.[12] Once the creatures are on the shore, locals slaughter them, using a specially-designed spinal lance .[13] The spinal lance cuts the spinal cord of the whale or dolphin, which cuts the blood supply to the brain, causing unconsciousness and paralysis simultaneously.[14] This practise has resulted in compelling images of grindadr p communicated via social media, which shows the sea turning red with the blood of the whales and dolphins.[15]

Grindadr p can take as long as anywhere from half an hour, to five hours. Once the hunt is over, the sysselmann apportions the meat to people in the community using a traditional calculation , in a non-commercial way.[16] In an interview with Kate Sanderson a government advisor on responsible hunting, Sanderson stated there can be too much suffering for individual animals in some cases but it is a slaughter of wild animals in an uncontrolled environment, so it s never going to be completely clinical, like it might be in a slaughterhouse .[17] Sanderson then went on to state sure, it s a tradition but it s a form of food production it s a local resource. It s part of the diet. It s not a sport. It s a way of getting food for the family .[18]

The issue of grindadr p is not one of legality, but of morality, and this ethical issue illustrates that the two are distinct entities. Under current laws, the hunt is legal. Moreover, the hunt is highly regulated too, as only those who have received specialised training can engage in the hunt.[19] Moreover, grindadr p does not pose an existential threat to the species of the whale or dolphin hunted, as the number of whales and dolphins hunted annually, on average, amounts to 800.[20] The Faroese government stated, that this number equates to around 1% of the total whale and dolphin population in the Faroese waters .[21]

However, it is the brutality of the hunt which forms the majority of opposition to grindadr p. As Bogad ttir and Olsen highlighted, the images of grindadr p and the intense animal rights activist campaigns have portrayed a negative image of Faroese society to a globally environmentally conscious audience.[22] Grindadr p therefore, reveals a clear clash between the Western concept of conservationism and the Aboriginal concept of nativism and traditionalism . Polarisation between the native and the outsider is therefore clear. As Bulbeck and Bowdler stated, the intense debates between whale-hunting and whale-protecting nations reveal the difficulties of communication between those who derive a livelihood from the products of the environment and those who wish to preserve it, but who do not always live in the same locale .[23] It is clear that there is an ideological conflict between the locals and the outsiders , because it is a clash of two different cultures and identities. As Bogado ttir and Olsen stated, constant (re)negotiation of identity is intimately connected to ways in which people engage with and utilize the natural environment .[24] This makes it conceptually problematic for moral theory to solve the controversy.

It is problematic to apply one s ethical values on an ethical issue hundreds of miles away, when the one who seeks to apply moral theory lives in a culture of postmodernism. As Peterson stated, postmodernism is essentially the claim that since there are an innumerable number of ways in which the world can be interpreted and perceived then no canonical manner of interpretation can be reliably derived .[25] Using Peterson s definition of postmodernism, if there are an innumerable number of ways to interpret the world, this would subsequently include the notion of morality. This means it is theoretically problematic to apply moral theory to any ethical issue, let alone one in an entirely different culture and society.

The link between ethics and power is innate. This is something which Peterson hinted at, as he stated since no canonical manner of interpretation can be reliably derived, all interpretation variants are best interpreted as the struggle for different forms of power .[26] Condoning or prohibiting grindadr p, purely on the basis of an individual s, or a collective perception of right or wrong, is a form of exerting power on another culture or practise. It is therefore, a form of both cultural and ethical homogenisation. This is morally problematic. One could even view it as a form of ethical imperialism and many Faroese locals do not approve of this interference . Magnus one of the leaders of the grindadr p stated, the people come here and tell us what we should do. We have done it for thousands of years, we know what we shall do. I think they will also be a bit angry if we tell them what they should do at home".[27] As Stacey Dooley emphasised, we need to bear in mind that this is not our country, this is not our culture .[28]

This is not to say that there is no place for a unified form of morality which transcends national and cultural boundaries. International law and cooperation for example, in an environmental sense, has saved many species from extinction. As Crow highlighted, in the 1940s, there was only an estimated 40 Siberian tigers left in Russia.[29] However, an international law which banned the hunting of Siberian tigers was implemented.[30] This has protected the Siberian tiger population, and there are now an estimated 540 Siberian tigers in the wild.[31] International law and protections is not just exclusive to individualistic cases such as the Siberian tiger. For example, The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora was established in 1975.[32] Its goal was to ensure that international trade does not threaten the survival of wild plant and animal species.[33] Moreover, International law and corporation has played a significant part in tackling climate change. For example, The Paris Agreement, directly tackles climate change, by implementing measures to limit the average rise of the global temperature to below 2 degrees Celsius.[34] It is therefore clear, that international law and corporation does play a pivotal role in ensuring the ecological wellbeing of our planet. Evidence would imply however, that this would not necessarily apply to grindadr p, due to there being no existential threat to the species of the animals involved. However, the controversy and opposition of grindadr p is not necessarily centred on the scale of the hunt, but more on the specific practises involved in the killing of the whales and dolphins.

There are ethical frameworks which can attempt to solve the controversy of the practises of grindadr p. At the centre of this framework, is the notion of ought . Ought is pivotal to any moral theory, because as Beavers stated, different conceptions of the source of the moral ought ultimately give rise to different conceptions of what is right and wrong .[35] There are numerous theoretical frameworks, which address the source of ought . For example, Kantian ethics states that the source of ought is structured within reason.[36] This differs from Levinas, who argues that the source of ought is not inscribed within the laws of cosmos, nor in reason, or any universal desire for pleasure .[37] For Levinas, the source of ought is the individual.[38] Others take the transcendental view of a higher-being as the source of ought , such as Aquinas, who believed that it is located in the will of God .[39]

However, in terms of application to the issue of grindadr p, these ethical frameworks are all problematic. Firstly, through the notion of reason , Kant argues that morality is mutually consistent and secure, as it rests on the same notion of human autonomy.[40] However, grindadr p and its controversies would imply that morality is not mutually consistent nor secure. If it was, then surely grindadr p would not be an ethically controversial practise? Secondly, Levinas notion that the source of ought is the individual is problematic, because without a hierarchy of power or knowledge, all individual opinion is intrinsically worth the same. It would therefore, not be possible to solve the controversy of grindadr p, as all opinion would be regarded equal regardless of what the opinion actually advocates.

Aquinas view is also problematic. If the will of God formed the notion of ought , then one can postulate morality to be absolute and objective. One may argue therefore that the solution to grindadr p would be apparent and there is evidently no clear solution. Furthermore, with God s will as the source of ought , there are numerous philosophical challenges to the benevolence of God. For example, Leibniz posed the question whether the good and just is good because God wills it or whether God wills it because it is good and just .[41] Moreover, as Hume identified, the statements God exists and there occur instances of suffering are logically incompatible.[42] There have been attempts to solve these challenges through the notion of theodicies, such as that of Augustine s and Irenaeus s, but the notion of God is still contentious. However, one could argue that regardless of the philosophical difficulties, Aquinas ethical framework is simply incompatible with the postmodern and secular values which many have largely embraced today. Therefore, none of these ethical frameworks would work.

Another ethical framework which has not been analysed thus far is utilitarianism, which states that the human being s desire for pleasure is the structure in which ought is located.[43] Sandel identified the essential utilitarian principle as: to maximise the general welfare, or the collective happiness, with the overall balance of pleasure over pain, in a phrase maximise utility .[44] However, this utilitarian principle is problematic. Firstly, the collective happiness is too vague for grindadr p, because it is unclear whether you would only consider the Faroese people s happiness, or outsiders happiness too. Furthermore, both those who defend grindadr p and oppose it could use this utilitarian principle to justify their own views. This is a philosophical criticism of the entire utilitarian framework, as any action could theoretically be justified in the name of utilitarianism. In relation to grindadr p, those who oppose it would refer to the pain that the whales and dolphins endure. Whereas, those who see no moral issue with grindadr p, would argue that grindadr p is an important natural source of food thus meaning that people get pleasure from it. It is also conceptually bewildering, because whether you would include animals into the pain vs pleasure principle is entirely subjective. Therefore, utilitarianism cannot solve the controversies of grindadr p either.

It is clear that entire pre-existing ethical frameworks cannot solve the controversies of grindadr p. However, practical reasoning can. For one who lives in the Western World, it is simply illogical to condone grindadr p for numerous reasons. Firstly, the issue of hypocrisy. As the Humane Slaughter Association reported, an average of just under one billion animals are killed in the United Kingdom each year.[45] In addition, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals reported that more than 130,000 cases of animal cruelty and neglect are investigated each year in England and Wales.[46] As previously stated, grindadr p on average results in 800 whales and dolphins being killed annually.[47] Imposing one s own morality on grindadr p which results in a substantial lower amount of suffering and pain inflicted on animals is entirely hypocritical. However, this goes further than matters of irony. As previously stated, one could argue that imposing one s own ethical views on another culture and tradition is unethical in itself.

This does not mean that one cannot form a judgement of grindadr p, but central to solving the controversy is by taking a consequentialist approach. Central to this approach should be one s ecological conscience .[48] Once this approach is taken, it can be concluded that grindadr p should be allowed to continue. This conclusion has been made on two factors. Firstly, grindadr p has been an important supply of food for a relatively isolated nation for 1000 years, in a non-detrimental way to the species of whales and dolphins involved. Grindadr p is therefore of much importance to the Faroese people. Moreover, by moving away from the ethical analysis of the specifics of grindadr p, as Bogado ttir and Olsen identified, grindadr p is contemporarily ecologically beneficial.[49] Whilst this would seem somewhat bewildering at first, the Faroe Islands has one of the highest capita GDPs in the world and this is because the national economy is dominated by industrial fisheries.[50] Grindadr p does not just provide food, it provides other materials such as: oil, soap, and cosmetics too.[51] As Bogado ttir and Olsen highlighted, if grindadr p was criminalized, then the Faroe government would have to increase importation of goods.[52] This would actually be more detrimental to the environment, than grindadr p. Therefore, by taking a consequentialist approach, and examining the social, cultural, economic, and environmental factors, grindadr p is beneficial to Faroese society.

The innate nature of grindadr p will always be controversial, but central to solving this issue is looking at the bigger picture . Grindadr p is of high importance, and this is what is pivotal - not the specific moralistic problems with the hunt. This does not mean that animal suffering is of no importance. It is imperative to hold the Faroese authorities to account and to ensure that the suffering faced is as minimal as possible. This has previously been done. For example, the spinal lance was designed to reduce the suffering that the whales and dolphins face. Moreover, it is clear that moral theory cannot solve what is at stake here. However, by taking the notion of consequentialism and rationally applying this through the use of practical reasoning, one may well conclude that grindadr p should be allowed to continue.

Word count: 2,709

Bibliography

Beavers, Anthony, Introducing Levinas to Undergraduate Philosophers (Austin: University of Texas, 1995).

Bogado ttir, Ragnhei ur and Olsen, Skar hamar, Elisabeth, Making degrowth locally meaningful: the case of the Faroese grindadra p , Journal of Political Ecology, 24.1, (2017).

Budgen, Philip, What is Grindadr p and why is whaling in the Faroe Islands so controversial? (2016) [accessed 3 June 2020].

Bulbeck, Chilla and Bowdler, Sandra, `The Faroes Grindadr p or Pilot Whale Hunt: The Importance of it`s `Traditional` Status in Debates with Conservationists`, Australian Archaeology, 67.1, (2008).

Corcoran, Kieran, (2019) Eco-campaigners took these grisly photos of whale and dolphin hunts in the Faroe Islands [accessed 4 June 2020].

Crow, Sarah, 15 Animal Species Miraculously Saved From Extinction (2017)

< [accessed 18 June 2020].

[accessed 3 June 2020].

[accessed 18 June 2020].

[accessed 18 June 2020].

[accessed 3 June 2020].

[accessed 15 June 2020].

[accessed 4 June 2020].

[accessed 15 June 2020]

[accessed 18 June 2020].

[accessed 18 June 2020].

[accessed 3 June 2020].

---

[accessed 3 June 2020].

[accessed 3 June 2020].

[accessed 3 June 2020].

[accessed 3 June 2020].

[accessed 3 June 2020].

[accessed 3 June 2020].

[accessed 3 June 2020].

[accessed 3 June 2020].

[accessed 3 June 2020].

[accessed 3 June 2020].

[accessed 3 June 2020].

[accessed 4 June 2020].

[accessed 4 June 2020].

[accessed 15 June 2020].

[accessed 3 June 2020].

[accessed 18 June 2020].

[accessed 18 June 2020].

[accessed 18 June 2020].

[accessed 15 June 2020].

[accessed 18 June 2020].

[accessed 18 June 2020].

[accessed 4 June 2020].