I recently came across a show on Animal Planet called "Whale Wars". The program follows the crew of the MV Steve Irwin as they attempt to impede Japanese whaling in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. The Japanese, however, say that their activities are legal because they only kill whales for scientific research, which is allowed by the IWC.
I'm not an expert in international law, so I don't know whether the Japanese whalers are acting legally or not. That being said, I think the second question has a much clearer answer, mostly because the methods used by the crew of the MV Steve Irwin (e.g., throwing nauseating chemicals onto the decks of the whaling vessels) strike me as far too dangerous and aggressive.
So can we take pop culture, give it a healthy dose of moral philosophy, and come out the other side with some insight? You bet.
The MV Steve Irwin
Rawls to the Rescue
The American philosopher John Rawls once created a thought-experiment that may be useful here: the "original position". It goes like this:
Imagine a group of people who are attempting to write the laws of a new society. While creating their laws, however, they remain ignorant of their ultimate position in the society; that is, nobody knows what race, sex, and so forth that they'll eventually become. Because everyone is presumably rational and wouldn't want to condemn themselves to any disadvantages, they will eventually agree on a just set of laws.
Now let's apply Rawls' scenario to "Whale Wars" and see if we can figure out if the actions of the MV Steve Irwin are just or not. So imagine you and I, not knowing who will turn out to be the environmentalist and who will turn out to be the whaler, are trying to decide what to do.
Obviously, neither one of us would want stinky chemicals thrown onto the deck of our ship, nor would we want to be injured if our ships collide, so we can rule out those types of aggressive actions as unjust. We can also rule out unregulated whaling (even in the name of science), as neither one of us wants to kill all the whales either.
A humpback whale breaching
Since we both have an equal chance of becoming the whaler versus becoming the environmentalist, we would probably agree on a compromise. Such a deal would most likely allow for the killing of a certain number of whales, but we'd also want such whaling to be done in a sustainable manner.
Although these non-violent conclusions seem obvious when attained through Rawls' methods, for some reason they seem to escape the environmentalists of the MV Steve Irwin. As for the Japanese, I won't quite fault them yet, as I cannot say for sure whether they are killing more whales than is sustainable.
Kant Rocks the Boat
Another ethical philosophy that could be instructive here is Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative. Put simply, his ethical framework says this:
"Act in such a way that you treat humanity [...] as an end and never only as a means to an end." That is, don't use others just to get what you want.
For example, suppose I tell my friend Brett that I will give him $20 to wash my car, but I secretly decide to not pay up. Kant would say that this is wrong because I used Brett as a way to get what I wanted (a clean car) instead of treating him like a person with intrinsic value.
Immanuel Kant
In the case of the MV Steve Irwin, the crew's end is to save whales from the Japanese ships. However, the way they go about this endangers both their own lives and the lives of the Japanese whalers. Thus, the crew is effectively using the whalers to get at their own ends, and are not treating the whalers as ends in themselves (or else they would not be endangering them).
So What?
Both Kant's categorical imperative and Rawls' original position find the crew at fault for their dangerously aggressive tactics, but that isn't to say that the Japanese whalers are completely without blame. Clearly, there is a legal and ethical conflict here that requires further examination.
The most important thing we've discovered here is that the morality of the show isn't as black and white as Animal Planet wants it's viewers to think. Although the MV Steve Irwin's goal is as noble as could be, the means used the achieve it are much less so. Trying to stop violence against animals by using violence against people isn't a solution, it's part of the problem.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
I have to disagree with your assertion that Animal Planet itself presents the actions of the Steve Irwin in a positive light. The narration and/or editing plainly shows what transpires, and does not try to hide the fact that what the whale lovers do is fairly dangerous for all parties involved (they show the stupid things that endanger only their own lives, a-la the episode where they go through an ice field, or when they accidentally swamp one of the little pontoon boats). The narration also regularly highlights the fact that the Steve Irwin is regularly condemned by Japanese, Australian, and other government bodies. A Japanese viewpoint is not presented, but most likely because of the logistics involved, and the fact that the Japanese want to limit exposure of their whaling industry to a wider audience.
That aside, I believe your thought experiment is interesting, but it ignores one fact, both the Steve Irwin, and the Japanese, are zealots. They both have positions that are mutually irreconcilable, and also immutable. An interesting corollary would be that of the more extreme pro-lifers and pro-choicers in the US. Even though a common ground exists (make abortion safe but rare by increasing access to sex education and contraception, thereby reducing unwanted pregnancies), both sides see any sort of compromise as losing.
Thanks for your comment, mp3phile.
I would of course agree that Animal Planet doesn't support the actions of the MV Steve Irwin explicitly. Heck, they even have a disclaimer before the show stating that they do not endorse the crew's opinions.
However, by showing the danger that the crew faces (even when the whalers aren't around), Animal Planet subtly encourages it's viewers to think of them as heroes of some sort. After all, look at all the hardships and trials the crew is enduring on their quest! They must be on the side of the good guys!
Furthermore, the fact that Animal Planet informs us of the Japanese condemnations is even better, because now our 'heroes' are triumphing over adversity!
So I guess I both agree and disagree with you. From one perspective, showing all the danger and condemnations may seem to be fair and even-handed. But from another perspective, it could be serving to solidify support for the environmentalists.