Animal ethics is concerned with an examination of the beliefs that are held about the moral status of non-human animals. It is concerned, therefore, not with describing how animals are treated but with how they ought to be treated. This paper focuses upon two particular ethical approaches chosen because they enable us to understand more clearly the debate about the moral status of animals in general, and whales in particular, as well as offering a way of maximising consensus in the debate. The first, which describes the dominant discourse within the International Whaling Commission (IWC), is based on the argument that our duties to non-human animals are indirect, such that their protection is dependent upon the degree to which it is in our interests to do so. This is the logic behind the discourse of anthropocentric conservation. The second approach is the ethic of animal welfare. Unlike anthropocentric conservationism, the animal welfare ethic is not based upon denying, or ignoring, the moral standing of non-human animals, and is consistent with the widespread acceptance, in theory and practice, that we do have direct duties to animals, that they do have moral standing.