The
Captivity of Orca Whales, a Moral Dilemma
Humans
are curious beings. They marvel at the
wonder of the Earth and the many species that share it. Wonder is natural and with
many other species, is reciprocal. With the development of technology in the
past century, such curiosity and wonder has progressed into a utilitarian
attitude towards the Earth and her inhabitants. This is evident in the practice
of capturing and displaying wild animals for profit. Orca whales in particular
have been the frontline of zoological attractions which offer the opportunity
to experience “the energy and spirit of the ocean” (SeaWorld San Diego, 2013,
para. 1). Though some
people argue that captivity is an acceptable form of conservation, captivity in
the case of orca whales is a particularly exploitative and morally repugnant
industry which poses health and safety risks to the whales and the people that
care for them.
The orca, formally called the “Orcinus orca” but more
commonly known as the “killer whale”, is among the most intelligent species in
the whole world. They are highly social animals as evident in the observations
of their interactions among their own kind in the wild as well as in captivity.
In the wild their group structures, or pods, are based on deep bonds between
mothers and their offspring whom stay together throughout their lifespan (Orca
Fact File, 2013). Science has suggested that orca whales display what humans
refer to as “culture”, or specific ways of communicating, interacting, and hunting.
According to the National Parks Conservation Association (2010), “the animals
are thought to have complex forms of communication with different dialects
(slightly different language) from one pod to another” (para. 8). Recent
research has even verified that the orca brain demonstrates the presence of a
limbic system – the apparent foundation for emotional life - more advanced than
that of the human brain (Oteyza, M. & Cowperthwaite, G., 2013). These
findings confirm the presence of a psychological connectivity to their environment
and an awareness of life. Such characteristics relate to “personhood”, thus by most
societies’ standards, deems them worthy of respect and dignity.
The
knowledge of these animals’ biology and psychology poses the question of ethics
regarding what responsibility humanity has towards these fellow inhabitants. In
determining such morality the theory of virtue ethics may be applied. Virtue
ethics by definition states that one would come to a conclusion on a moral
dilemma by assessing what is most virtuous, rather than what represent the
needs of many or by focusing on the consequences of the action (Mosser, 2010). Therefore,
this theory implies the moral dilemma would be solved by considering what would
be right in terms of the whales and not personal or commercial interest. Inevitably,
there is quite the controversy over what constitutes virtue when proposing the
questions that virtue ethics demands to be answered: As the awareness of the complexities of these
animals continue to evolve and humanity comes to believe that they are
conscious beings, individuals not unlike humans themselves, by what right does
society validate their abduction and imprisonment for the sake of
entertainment? At what point does the proverbial line between research and
conservation of these animals cross into blatant slavery and degradation of
their species? Perspectives may vary, though after casting aside corporate
greed and personal intrigues, it is hard to ignore that the captivity of these
animals is morally corrupt and an abuse of human power.
Attraction
parks like SeaWorld claim they provide a rich learning experience and inspire
an appreciation for marine animals while simultaneously providing appropriate
medical care for their orcas that would (in their opinion) not otherwise thrive
in the wild after a prolonged life in captivity. This argument is quite
contradictive; if it is true that captive whales have been institutionalized to
a point that they cannot survive in the wild, it is the fault of the attraction
itself for not only breeding orcas in captivity, but for training them to be
dependent on humans when they are still only calves. While oceanariums offer
efforts towards public awareness and conservation, the focus is on the profit received
by displaying these animals as a product. Such attractions seek to direct the
debate of morality towards the live capture of orcas from the wild which,
despite a ban the United States and Canada has placed, is still being practiced
internationally. The ban on seizing wild orcas is not enough though to satisfy
the moral dilemma at hand. As of 2011 more than forty-one killer whales resided
in amusement parks around the world (What to Do About a Killer Whale, 2011).
Considering how many may have been born in captivity or taken from the ocean
since then one could safely assume this number has increased – a quite
unfortunate assumption considering how captivity affects their physical and
mental well-being. In the wild orcas swim approximately 100 miles a day,
whereas in captivity they are restricted to tanks that to humans would be the
equivalent of a bathtub. Consequently, they face a series of health issues such
as infections, disease, and a mortality rate twice as high as adult whales in
the wild (Horgan, 2013). Several marine biologist have surmised that these
conditions combined with the extremely advanced intelligence of orca whales can
and have led to their psychosis. These facts are evidence that there is no
benefit for orcas, and thus no virtue, in captivity. The virtuous actions marine
attractions claim to make towards conservation, education, and awareness can be
easily refuted. The argument against captivity is the most logical in terms of
virtue ethics.
To
act on virtue ethics would be to release these animals into the wild, if
possible, or at the very least to a more natural environment where they are
free to swim openly, hunt, and reclaim placement in their intricate social
structure. While there may always be debate as to whether a full release into
the wild would be possible for orcas that have spent most of their life in captivity,
many agree that attempting it would be the morally correct action. For
instance, the 1993 blockbuster movie “Free Willy”, featuring Keiko –a captive
fifteen year old killer whale, inspired millions of children and activists
groups to take such action. In a tribute to Keiko and whales like him, movie
producers, schools, and several donators rallied together and raised funds for
Keiko’s release back into the wild. After years of planning Keiko was slowly
reintroduced to his natural habitat. At twenty-five years old, less than two
years after his complete independence from humans, Keiko died of natural causes.
While some claim the nearly twenty-million dollars spent to release Keiko was a
waste, Keiko ultimately proved to the world that life outside of nets and tanks
is possible after a life spent in captivity (Kirby, 2013). His story produced a
tremendous amount of media attention in favor of his new life. At the time of
his death, Keiko was the oldest adult whale captivity had seen.
Unfortunately, after Keiko’s release society fell
relatively quiet to this issue of morality, focusing once again on the wonder
of these animals and the extraordinary experience it is to see them up close.
Oceanariums around the world market such attractions in a way that appeals to
one’s emotions, claiming it to be a once in a lifetime opportunity to see these
whales. As advertised by SeaWorld San Diego (2013):
Dancing
fountains set the stage as you connect with thrilling sea creatures and realize
we are all part of one world, one ocean. Your soul is ignited as our worlds are
united… and you realize that we all have the power to make a difference in this
planet we share (para.1).
This appeals to the
curiosity and wonder of humanity, and in so doing plants the false notion that
attending such shows expresses respect for this species. It is a powerful
message of rebuttal to virtue ethics, as it calls to the ethical egoist, who
act in the favor of their own pleasure.
Ethical egoism, the decision to do whatever it is that
intensifies one’s self interest, is a prominent way in which business and
consumerism operates today (Mosser, 2010). Rarely anyone can deny that seeing a
massive killer whale leap from the water, flip in the air, and wave its dorsal
fin is a thrilling experience. No doubt such a show would be hard to deny,
particularly when its marketing helps reason away the negativity behind it. Consumers
are led in, entertained, and left with little information as to what the lives
of the orcas are really like. For some egoist, naivety is not as much an issue
as is the blatant disregard for the facts. Most people cannot deny what is
obviously natural for these animals and thereby what is right and wrong, though
it is easy to ignore the facts when distracted by appeals made to their sense
of entitlement… a condition that seems to plague humanity. Protest groups such
as Mate call the practice of keeping orca whales captive “barbaric” and claim
it is morally degrading to the entire community (“Protestors”, 2001). Affirmation
to this ideal began to spread after the release of the documentary movie
“Blackfish”, which first aired in the summer of 2013. Since then there has been
a steady rise in awareness and debate regarding orca whales. The movie follows
the life of Tilikum, a male orca owned by SeaWorld, while unraveling the truth
and highlighting the deceptions that oceanariums hide behind. Regardless of the
negative publicity the film caused SeaWorld, they reported no damage to their
ticket sales after the film was released. Despite the public’s awareness of evidence
against captivity, egoism will continue to pose a challenge to enforcing what
society in general deems virtuous.
Perhaps the theory of deontology would provide further
insight into the issue of morality. Deontology states that people must do as
they are obligated to do to show respect to one another (Mosser, 2010). The basic premise of this theory can be
surmised by the popular phrase “do unto others as you would have them to unto
you”. A deontologist would argue that
human beings have dignity which must be considered when determining the moral
choices made when dealing with them. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
as determined by the people of the United Nations, asserts that all persons are
to be free from slavery and servitude (United Nations, 2013). Such rights are based on the presence of inherit
dignity that the human race possesses, which is parallel to that possessed by
orca whales. Since research has established the orca whales demonstrate
psychological characteristics similar, if not the same, to that of humans, then
it can be deduced that they are to be treated with the same dignity that humans
are entitled to. Since the human condition, like that of the orca whale, is
universal and knows no borders the relativist would find no bearings on an
argument against it. Based on this logic the theory of deontology, as well as
the theory of relativism, denies any moral foundation in holding orca whales in
captivity.
Both virtue ethics and deontology present strong
arguments against orca whales in captivity, though they both rely on an
agreement that orcas have rights based on their similarities to humanity which
is a stance that, no matter how far scientific data goes, will never be
universally accepted. For those less
concerned with philosophical reasoning is the theory of utilitarianism. This classical theory bases decision making
on what action produces the most happiness for the most people involved
(Mosser, 2010). Many would say the most
happiness is placed in viewing the shows that oceanariums like SeaWorld
produce, much like the stance that ethical egoism takes. While it is true that one’s utility- or their
state of happiness - may be increased with the close interactions offered by
these shows, the safety of the trainers and the audience should be of greater
concern. Orca whales are larger, faster
swimmers than humans, and on a predatory level are much more dominant. Though the last century has proven that people
are able to control orcas behavior and ultimate dependency through positive
reinforcement (or in some cases, food deprivation), there have been several
recorded instances of injuries and deaths from interactions with orca
whales. Whether accidental or intentional,
orca whales in captivity have demonstrated their ability to trash and drown
trainers and others that come within close contact to them. For instance, in 2010 SeaWorld trainer Dawn
Brancheau was killed by Tilikum, the largest male orca owned by SeaWorld
Florida following a show. While there are mixed reports as to what actually
transpired, the official report states that Tilikum pulled Brancheau into the
water by her pony tail, scalped her, repeatedly rammed and dismembered her
before finally drowning her and refusing to release her body (Blackfish,
2013). Such incidents are rare, but have
recently been proven possible and serve society with the sobering reminder that
humans are inferior to the physicality of these animals. In terms of utility,
the enjoyment one receives from such shows does not outweigh the ultimate
safety risks imposed to the audience and staff.
Rather, the greatest good to the public is to avoid close proximity and
interactions with these animals that are not only uncontrollable when they
attack, but are clearly only volatile in captivity as there have never been any
reports of human injuries from orcas in the wild.
There are many ways to view the issue of morality in the
case of keeping orca whales in captivity, all of which provide different views
of the argument which society struggles to come to agreement on. The three classical theories all offer
logical insight, from that of virtue ethics which considers what is best for
the whales, to the theory of deontology which considers the duty we have as
human beings, and finally the theory of utilitarianism which views the issue
from the angle of the consequences it faces to those involved. Despite such
logic, the selfish instincts of society fuels actions, such as captivity and
the direct or indirect sponsoring of it, as produced by ethical egoism, thus
denying the moral obligations that humanity has to its respective species.
Conservation
is an effort worthy to be condoned when executed in the best interest of the
animals involved. Since there has yet to be any indications that orca whales
are in danger of extinction, there seems to be little purpose in maintaining
oceanariums for such preservation.
Furthermore, human safety in handling these whales have been
compromised. For profit corporations that house these animals for entertainment
pose safety risks to their employees and the audiences that have been allowed
to interact with them. Observations of the whales in captivity, as well as in
the wild, have provided scientists with a deeper understanding of the
psychological and physical needs of these animals. They require space to swim large distances
and an open sea to hunt. They are highly
intelligent social animals that thrive in their natural biologically formed pods
and display emotional connectivity to their environment. The more that is learned about them the more
is required of humanity to make changes in how we live amongst them. Holding
them captive and training them to do tricks is blatant slavery and degrading to
their dignity. It is an abuse of the power that humanity has claimed and an
ultimate estrangement from the virtues, ethics, and morality that mankind
strives to uphold.
References
Anonymous. (2011). What to Do
About A Killer Killer Whale. Maclean's, 124, 4. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/861842492?accountid=32521
Hogan, S. (2013). Author
Decries Keeping Killer Whales in Captivity. Gloucaster
Daily Times.
Kirby,
D. (2012). 7 Things About Wild Killer
Whales You’ll Never Learn at SeaWorld. Retrieved from: http://www.takepart.com/photos/wild-killer-whales/orcas-in-the-open-ocean.
Kirby,
D. (2013). 20 Years After ‘Free Willy’, Was It Right to Free Keiko the Killer
Whale. Retrieved from http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/09/24/i-remember-keiko-20-years-after-free-willy-former-trainer-recounts-killer-whales
Mosser, K. (2010). Ethics & Social Responsibility. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint
Education, Inc.
National
Parks Conservation Association. (2010). Killer Whale. Retrieved from http://www.npca.org/protecting-our-parks/wildlife_facts/orca.
Oteyza,
M. & Cowperthwaite, G. (2013). Blackfish
[Documentary]. United States: Magnolia Pictures.
Protesters Call for Bjossa the killer whale to be set
free, not moved south. (2001, Apr 21). Canadian Press NewsWire.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/359527961?accountid=32521
SeaWorld
SanDiego. (2013). One Ocean. SeaWorld
Parks and Entertainment. Retrieved from http://seaworldparks.com/en/seaworld-sandiego/Attractions/Shows/One-Ocean?from=Top_Nav
United
Nations. (2013). The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. NY: UN Publications. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/#atop
No comments:
Post a Comment