Methylmercury: The Ethics Of Shark Fin Soup

One of the difficulties dealing with Shark Fin Soup is the moral principles behind using the Shark Fins within the soup. According to British Filmmakers following Carlos Maucuaca, Mozambique’s first native dive instructor and shark conservationist, stated, “An estimated 73 million sharks are slaughtered every year, with 110 species now facing extinction”. During the production of the film, it was found consumers are dying due to the high levels of methylmercury within the Shark Fins. The methylmercury within the Shark Fins is the reason for several Countries such as the United States warning women not to eat Shark Fins while child-bearing. Due to the fact, 60,000 children are born with damage caused by methylmercury. A study was done by Rachel

During a study in March 2016 by Lauren Smith, a marine biologist who specializes in shark research, found two of the hammerhead species being traded were classified as endangered. This proves the trading market within China However, popular chain Fu Sing Shark Fin Seafood Restaurant owner Leung insists, “Why is it cruel to go for white shark and all other fish it’s not? What’s the difference?”. Given his position, he is meant to argue against the ethics behind killing a shark although he does have a reason. Animals are animals which is where his reason lies and is the reason animal equality should not be invoked. Studies done by Maneesha Deckha a professor at the University of Victoria affirms, “Many of us who live with non-human animals would count our non-human companions as members of our families, even as our kin. Yet the law’s definition of family, however much it has shifted towards the inclusion of non-normative relationships, still excludes non-humans and even commodifies them as chattels. For this, and a multitude of other reasons, animals merit better legal recognition”. Which she then reasons why ethically animals should not be given equality due to it being absurd. Examining each animal’s capacity to reason, suffer, emote, use language, make tools, or exhibit some other trait presumed to define what it means to be human is irrational. Therefore, rather than basing rights off of those traits make it a vulnerability discourse.

There are two main animal equality arguments, Peter Singer’s Utilitarian theory, and Tom Regan’s moral recognition theory. Singer argues, “human preference for humans rests on an unsupportable biological distinction vis-a`-vis all other animals”. While Tom Regan states, “that all beings who are ‘‘subjects-of-a-life” should receive the moral recognition and legal protection that rights afford”. The problem with the