Why isn't the battle to support whaling being waged philosophically?

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has said "no" to Japan's research whaling efforts in the Antarctic Ocean. Many Japanese officials seem to have been taken aback by the ruling, but what is more surprising to me is that they had such a rosy view.

According to reporting by The Asahi Shimbun, it seems certain that the government, its back to the wall, enlisted the help of European legal experts and scientists to win the case. Even if the Japanese government's argument succeeded in gaining some acceptance at the ICJ, it was completely unthinkable that the court would have ruled that "research whaling is OK."

Why? Because it was a battle in which the government hoisted the flag of "science."

The rise of the anti-whaling movement that has gained strength in the past several decades in the West is not founded on science. Rather, it is reasonable to say that it is rooted in philosophy.

However, failing to adapt for so long, the Japanese government perceived whales as a maritime resource and continued with research whaling on scientific grounds, saying that it was necessary in order to conserve that resource.

The proponents of the West's opposition to whaling and of Japan's acceptance are on different planets and were never going to see eye to eye in the first place. Under the circumstances, saying that "there is some data we can't collect without killing (the whales)" lacks persuasiveness in my view.

Of course there is debate within the International Whaling Commission (IWC) that is based on scientific data. But when that is hauled into the arena of international justice, it comes under intense scrutiny from a broader perspective. The undercurrent of that scrutiny is what I call here "philosophy." That is why it can only be a fight of philosophy versus philosophy.

When put this way, some people may tend to portray this dispute as an ideological fight. But that is a narrow-minded line of thought that sees philosophy as entirely entrenched in faith.

When two differing philosophies face off against each other, there is the possibility of coming to a compromise or making concessions if the two sides fight each other with reason. I believe that if we are to defend Japanese society's culinary culture of eating whale, then there is nothing else to gamble on.

PHILOSOPHY OF PROTECTING 'ANIMAL RIGHTS'

So, what sort of philosophy lies behind Western opposition to whaling? What we cannot ignore here are the values of the deep ecology philosophy that arose in the 1970s. Adherents to this movement think that "non-human living things have their own value, regardless of their utility to humans" (Derek Wall, "The No-Nonsense Guide to Green Politics").

This position is quite simply the complete opposite of the "resource conservation" view. The conclusion that springs from this realization is that anti-whaling activists do not simply support the humane treatment of animals: their philosophy is one of protecting "animal rights."

International environmental protection groups opposed to whaling have frequently used images and videos in their campaigns of blood-drenched whales cut apart, but they are not merely appealing to people's emotions. We should recognize that they are accusing whalers of infringing upon animal rights that should be respected.

The pro-ecology philosophies have permeated the West far more than they have in Japanese society. That is why these kinds of environmental protection movements have been successful and their support allows them to collect funds.

Yet still, adherents to such a "deep" philosophy are certainly not in the majority. Eating meat is the strongest part of the West's culinary culture and it is deeply rooted--far more even than in Japan. The West faces a contradiction of its own.

If eating whale is wrong, then why do they allow the consumption of beef, pork and mutton? There is no simple answer to this question. One is to draw a line between wild animals like whales on one side and livestock such as cows, pigs and sheep on the other.

However, the excuse that domesticated animals are OK to eat leads to the conclusion that it is OK to take a life if it provides "utility to humans"--an undesirable line of thinking from a deep ecology standpoint. Another answer is the argument that whales are highly intelligent and that they suffer immeasurable distress when captured. But the idea of linking the degree of life's sanctity with intelligence is potentially hazardous.

No doubt Westerners are troubled by these contradictions. One answer offered by dedicated deep ecology devotees is vegetarianism, but it seems that the overwhelming majority of Westerners who accept the consumption of meat are at pains over how to formulate the logic that justifies drawing a line to tolerate the slaughter of livestock.

To elaborate, the pro-ecology philosophies are ways of thinking that respect the ecosystems of the living world; they do not deny the existence of the food chain of "eat and be eaten" among species of living things. On this point as well, these philosophies allow room to think about the relationship between people and whales in a different way from an anti-whaling standpoint.

I cannot forget what a Cabinet minister from host country Ireland said at the opening of the IWC's annual meeting in Dublin in 1995. At the time, Ireland supported the creation of a no-whaling sanctuary, but this official declared, "I believe it would be wrong and in the nature of cultural imperialism for Ireland to attempt to impose our cultural values on those nations whose populations have depended on the whale for generations."

This remark was made with the awareness that there are many people in the world whose culinary culture includes whale, and when a claim is persuasive there is the possibility of reaching a compromise. One can see this from the fact that the IWC assigns whaling quotas to indigenous communities that consume whale meat.

Even in Japan there are both people who accept whaling and others who oppose it. My intention here is not to ally with one side and argue the matter. But if one were to ask what whaling supporters should do in fruitless debates in the international arena, then I believe they should begin by talking about coastal whaling activities with roots in local communities, rather than research whaling in the Antarctic Ocean.

Clues may even be found by further exploring the deep ecology philosophy from a fresh perspective. The pro-whaling stance that appears to cling only to "science" while ignoring philosophy is a bit pathetic.

Akira Ozeki is a science journalist and visiting professor at Hokkaido University. Ozeki was hired by The Asahi Shimbun in 1977 and became a science reporter in 1983. After serving as a member of the European General Bureau, head of the science and medicine department, assistant editorial editor in chief and in other posts, Ozeki resigned in 2013. His areas of interest are fundamental science and related subject areas.