Commercial whaling has been a hot topic for many years; many say that all forms of whaling must stop, while others argue that whaling should be allowed if it does not pose a threat to the total whale population. Now while this topic may seem straightforward on the surface, there are deep ethical questions being asked. Some of which are embodied the battle between deontological and utilitarianism views, and the variations between them.
Beginning with utilitarianism, which is the view that everyone’s interests should be considered (including animals) and that only the consequences of actions should be taken into consideration when determining whether an action is moral. The primary goal of utilitarianism is to “balance the pleasure and pain as such, the question of to whom a pleasure or pain belongs to is irrelevant” (27). Many, such as Singer, even state that the idea that humans should get special consideration would be considered “speciesism” which would be comparable to racism.
Then on the other spectrum lies the deontological view, which is the idea that some things have intrinsic value, or as Tom Regan believes, that animals or at least beings that were “subject to life” (beings …show more content…
Attfield’s view allows for human interests and value to trump animal interests and value while still allowing for the protection of ecosystems, which are in the interests of all the animals which reside in it, while allowing humans to cull off evasive and overpopulated species for the better of the ecosystem. For example, in regarding the whaling issue, Attfield’s view would allow for whaling as long as it's not detrimental to the overall population of whales and the surrounding ecosystem (other ocean animals) and as long as it satisfied enough human interests. All while excluding the culling of humans. Now, this view might still draw the claim of it being speciest, but that assumes that being a “speciest” is morally