sea shepherd conservation society (whale wars) vs japanese institute of cetacean research
· The real issue here is :
o Standing up for a cause that is important/ cannot stand up for itself/ action is not being taken
o Is it OK to do so violently? (does the end justify the means?)
we answer: yes, it is important to stand up for a cause like that of the whales, but not ok to do so with such violent and destructive measures
o It is illegal and morally wrong to kill whales
o their cause is not getting adequate support from other countries—the actions of the JICR are not being at all curbed
o quote about charter: ability/obligation to stand up for a cause that is illegal
Opposition:
o It is not obligatory or even allowable to stand up for another cause
§ But this is not true because they (the whales) cannot stand up for themselves, and need outside help.
Other part of the argument: BUT, not acceptable to do so by destruction—instead, promote it using less violent means:
o we applaud/encourage the media portrayal/ promotion of the whale’s issue because it is non violent but raises awareness
o doing so it taking action for the cause
Opposition: it IS ok to use violence
o will not actually help address larger issue
o will make issue more violent in general, destruction of whaling boats just creates more unnecessary friction between the groups
o will reduce or even take away the possibility for peaceful negotiation
§ make both sides more hostile
