The change in public opinion about whaling has been dramatic.
Thirty years ago Australian vessels would hunt sperm whales with the government's blessing -- but just last week an Australian customs ship, in Antarctic waters to video Japanese whaling activities, played a key role in winning the freedom of two anti-whaling activists.
The hostage crisis began when the activists boarded a Japanese harpoon boat on Tuesday last week. Because Paul Watson, the leader of the conservation group Sea Shepherd, refused to cease his disruption of the whaling fleet, the Japanese refused to return the two men. But the stalemate was broken two days later when the Australian ship agreed to accept, and transfer, the activists.
In 1977, the Australian government, in the face of Greenpeace protests, appointed the retired judge Sydney Frost to head an inquiry into whaling. As a concerned Australian and a philosophy professor working on the ethics of our treatment of animals, I made a submission: Whaling should stop not because whales are endangered, but because they are social mammals with big brains, capable of enjoying life and feeling pain -- not only physical pain, but distress at the loss of group members.
Whales cannot be humanely killed: They are too large. Even with explosive harpoons it is difficult to hit the right spot. And because whalers are reluctant to use large amounts of explosive, which would destroy valuable oil or flesh, harpooned whales typically die slowly and painfully. If there were some life-or-death need that humans could meet only by killing whales, perhaps the ethical case could be countered. But everything we get from whales can be obtained without cruelty elsewhere. Thus, whaling is unethical.
Frost agreed that the methods were inhumane, remarking on "the real possibility that we are dealing with a creature which has a remarkably developed brain and a high degree of intelligence."
Former Australian prime minister Malcolm Fraser's conservative government accepted his recommendation that whaling be stopped, and Australia soon became an anti-whaling nation.
While Japan has suspended its plan to kill humpback whales, its whaling fleet will still kill a thousand whales, mostly smaller minkes. Japan justifies this as "research" -- but the research seems to be aimed at building a scientific case for commercial whaling; so, if whaling is unethical, then the research is both unnecessary and unethical.
The Japanese say discussion of whaling should be carried out on the basis of evidence, without "emotion." They think that humpback numbers have increased sufficiently for the killing of 50 to pose no danger to the species.
On this narrow point, they might be right. But no amount of science can tell us whether or not to kill whales.
Indeed, the desire to kill whales is no less motivated by "emotion" than opposition to it. Eating whales is not necessary for health or nutrition; it is a tradition some Japanese are emotionally attached to.
They have one argument that is not easily dismissed. They claim that Western countries are just trying to impose their cultural beliefs on the Japanese. The best response to this argument is that the wrongness of causing needless suffering to sentient beings is not culturally specific. (It is, for instance, a precept of Japanese Buddhism.)
But Western nations are in a weak position to make this response, because they inflict so much unnecessary suffering on animals -- through culling, such as the Australian slaughter of kangaroos, to hunting and factory farms. The West will have little defense against the charge of cultural bias until it addresses needless animal suffering in its own back yard.
Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics at Princeton University, is the author of Animal Liberation and, with Jim Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat.
This month, the National Health Insurance (NHI) is to implement a major policy change by eliminating the suspension-and-resumption mechanism for Taiwanese residing abroad. With more than 210,000 Taiwanese living overseas — many with greater financial means than those in Taiwan — this reform, catalyzed by a 2022 Constitutional Court ruling, underscores the importance of fairness, sustainability and shared responsibility in one of the world’s most admired public healthcare systems. Beyond legal obligations, expatriates have a compelling moral duty to contribute, recognizing their stake in a system that embodies the principle of health as a human right. The ruling declared the prior
US president-elect Donald Trump is inheriting from President Joe Biden a challenging situation for American policy in the Indo-Pacific region, with an expansionist China on the march and threatening to incorporate Taiwan, by force if necessary. US policy choices have become increasingly difficult, in part because Biden’s policy of engagement with China, including investing in personal diplomacy with President Xi Jinping (習近平), has not only yielded little but also allowed the Chinese military to gain a stronger footing in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait. In Xi’s Nov. 16 Lima meeting with a diminished Biden, the Chinese strongman signaled little
On Tuesday, the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) issued a statement criticizing Song Siyao (宋思瑤), a student from Shanghai’s Fudan University, saying she had offended the sensibilities of Taiwanese. It also called for the Ma Ying-jeou Foundation — established by former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) — which had organized the tour group, to remind group members to be careful with their statements. Song, during a visit to a baseball stadium in Taichung, said that the tour group “would like to congratulate China, Taipei team (中國台北隊) ... we wish mainland China and Taiwan compatriots can be like the team Chinatrust Brothers and
“Integrated Diplomacy” (總和外交) is the guiding principle of Taiwan’s current foreign policy. It seeks to mobilize technology, capital and talent for global outreach, strengthening Taiwan’s international connections. However, without a robust information security mechanism, such efforts risk being reduced to superficial courtesy calls. Security clearance serves as the “entrance examination results” for government agency personnel in sensitive positions, qualifying them to access sensitive information. Senior aides in the US Congress must also possess security clearance to assist lawmakers in handling classified budgets. However, security clearance is not an automatic right or a blanket necessity for accessing sensitive information. Access is granted only
RSS