No of course not. I was mostly just trying to make the case that killing whales isn’t good for the environment, or is at least strictly worse than not killing them. The sustainability of whaling mostly refers to killing just few enough that we can continue killing them indefinitely, rather than any sort of positive effect on the environment. Clearly if we were actually interested in environmental sustainability we just wouldn’t be killing whales at all.

Did you have any thoughts about the other two points I made? I’m also curious why you’re so passionate about defending people who kill whales, since this seems like a pretty uncommon opinion.

Sure we can do that, I just didn’t want to hijack a conversation about what makes killing whales ok with a bunch of other separate considerations.

1. Whales feel pain.
2. It’s wrong to inflict pain on others unnecessarily.
3. Killing whales is not necessary.
4. Therefore, killing whales is bad.

Separately, there’s the environmental impact. No matter how sustainable the whaling is, it’s not like they’re overpopulating and need to be culled or something. Whales are important in the ocean ecosystem, and they’re good at sequestering carbon on the sea floor for a very very long time when they die. It seems pretty obvious to me that killing whales is done out of self interest (we like eating them, it’s our tradition, etc.) rather than out of some altruistic sense of duty to preserve the ecosystem, and not killing them at all would be the most sustainable solution.

And finally, I don’t know a ton about it but evidently there are some pretty serious health concerns with eating whales, that makes it seem like you could argue for not eating them (and therefore not killing them) purely out of self-interest to maintain your own personal health.

So from what you’re saying, it seems like not only is killing whales unnecessary for the Faroer anymore, but the document you linked seems to imply that it’s actively detrimental to their health.

Also this response doesn’t really engage with what I said before about the lines of reasoning being flawed. You’re painting a picture of how whaling has been an integral part of their cultural history, and that’s interesting information, but it doesn’t really relate to whether it’s the right thing to do.

So again, it’s an argument of the form “X is ok because it’s cultural and we’ve been doing X for a long time,” which I don’t think is very persuasive.

And one more thing: you’re now saying that they don’t kill whales commercially? So “Y is ok because we would be economically ruined if we didn’t do Y” doesn’t even apply, right? Or am I reading what you said incorrectly?

Got it, thanks for clarifying. I think both lines of reasoning have problems though:

1. X is ok because it’s cultural and we’ve been doing X for a long time.
2. Y is ok because we would be economically ruined if we didn’t do Y.

I can think of many things to fill in for X and Y that satisfy the necessary conditions, but still aren’t ok. I do, however, think this line of reasoning is valid:

3. Z is ok because we would literally starve if we didn’t do Z.

I don’t think any vegan would take issue with #3, since in that case Z is necessary, and vegans are only concerned with unnecessary harm.

Just to be clear, you’re no longer saying it’s ok to kill whales because it’s cultural and they’ve been doing it a long time? You’re now saying that it’s ok because they would be economically ruined if they didn’t kill whales?

I’m not trying to be combative, just trying to clarify.