A "Critically Endangered" gorilla (not sure if it's status matters) was shot and killed yesterday due to concerns of him potentially hurting a boy that got into his enclosure. The boy was dragged by his leg at about a running speed which probably influenced the tragedy. What I'm really curious about is your honest moral opinion about the situation:
1. Should the gorilla be shot and killed since there's a decent chance the boy may be injured or even killed by the silverback? 🙊🔫 2. Or should they staff have done something like tranquilized him and risked danger to the boy as a sleeping ape took several minutes to happen? Maybe a trusted staff member could have intervened etc. 👶🏾🏾🤕 This situation is assuming the boy went into the animals home: the animals home that the gorilla is forced to be in.
Bonus question if interested: A professional sports player (basketball) got shot and killed the other day for breaking down the door of the wrong apartment. Should the gorilla be allowed to defend his territory (if it wanted) just like the human in the apartment did? I'm not trying to be facetious at all. I don't want to influence any of you either. I'm just wondering if I'm the only one that feels like an advocate for the animal. I think my opinion is the minority and would like to see others views.
Do you think the gorillas life was worth less than the boy that got into his enclosure?
A "Critically Endangered" gorilla (not sure if it's status matters)
Really? It's status is like the only factors that would make me want to side with the gorilla. The gorilla is extremely rare, the human baby is not and is arguably more easily replaceable. Maybe the family wouldn't have seen it that way but overall you could argue the baby is more generic/common.
I feel like it was a lose/ lose situation for the staff and they just choose what they perceived to be the lesser of two evils. They were probably worried about being liable for the boys death. The parents could have argued that the enclosure shouldn't have been designed in such a way that a baby could have accidentally fallen in like that.
2. With the extruder scenario the guy forced himself in and the homeowner had reason to believe they were in danger. Im not a lawyer but I believe one of the factors for it to be legally justified is that the owner had to have a reasonable fear for his life. Did the gorilla feel the baby was a threat to it's life?
who knows ¯\(◔‿◔)/¯
Even if it did, the law that allowed the guy to shoot the intruder is created by humans and applicable only to humans. Without society's rules the law is just kill or be killed and in-group vs out- group.
3. In regards to whether a humans life is worth more, it depends on how you assign value. Generally I think we assign value to things based on emotions, usefulness, and rarity.
-Emotionally its natural that we will value human lives more. In that scenario we are more likely to relate to the baby or the family than we are to the gorilla.
-Usefulness, the average person exists on a higher level of consciousness than a gorilla does and has more potential to create great change within the world.
-Rarity is the only thing the gorilla might have had over the baby. There are lots of humans and our population is only going to increase in the coming years. The gorilla was one of a dying breed.
So in my opinion which one is more valuable depends on how much weight you assign to each of those three categories.
You made all good points. I don't know if the gorilla was scared of the boy, but I heard it seemed to sit by the boy and then react by running with the boy when the crowd screamed unfortunately. He probably got stressed or nervous. If they would have been quiet, the situation would have probably been different.
The murders in Chicago or whatever other place doesn't interest lots of people obviously because it's common. If 100 people fell in gorilla cages a day, and 1 person was shot every five years the opposite would get more interest. I'm pretty sure you know that. I agree murders are an issue but many people are trying to focus on their lives instead of problems.
True there are people upset with any outcome. Even if both survived, I bet there would be people upset that the boy got in the cage while with his mom.
I don't think both situations are the exact same. I think the part about the basketball player and kid coming into each individuals homes was the similar part.
I am a human being. I find it a ridiculous thing to ask another human being if they value human life over that of an animal. I'm sure if the animals could communicate, they would very much agree that they value their own lives, over our lives. Every living being on the planet wants to survive any way they can. Ask the lioness if she feels guilty about killing the 'innocent' baby antelope to feed herself or her cubs. Now granted, killing this gorilla was not about feeding ourselves to survive, but it was about protecting another human being, which again, I cannot feel any guilt over because if it were my family member, I would have hoped the zoo would have done the same. If someone wants to feel guilty about this and wants to feel like humanity is just absolutely the worst in life, go right ahead, but before they do so, I ask them if it were their 3 year old in their crying out for help or injured or bleeding or being drowned in front of them albeit by an innocent animal acting on instinct, could they truly say they would allow the animal to do so while their child died in front of them. If the answer is yes to that question, then I don't think that person understands what it means to be a parent.
Nope I don't think the gorilla's life was worthless. There are less than 1000 of their species alive on this earth whereas we have already surpassed 7 billion -_- I don't think they should have shot the gorilla nor do I think they should have tranquilized him. One of the care takers, one who probably raised him and knows gorilla and all his quirks, should have intervened. Maybe, entice the gorilla to one section of the cage and corner him off for a rescue team to come in and remove the boy or for one or more of the gorilla's personal care takes and an animal behaviorist to come in and gentle and safely remove the child from the gorilla without startling it. Yes, a professional sports player has the right to defend his home as anyone does. Yes, the gorilla had a right to defend its territory as well but as far as the video shows it doesn't look like it had an aggressive or harmful tendencies towards the child.
No, as horrible as it was - and I do feel sad about this endangered gorilla dying, and I think the parents really screwed up - the zoo made the right choice in my opinion. If it was an adult who went into that space, I might feel more ambiguous about it and think they should've given the tranquilizers a try, but this was a small 4 year old child being dragged around. You can't risk it. It would have been an even bigger tragedy if that kid had died.
I think about my little brother when he was small, and if he entered an enclosure like that by mistake, would I want the zoo to prioritize the animal's life and safety over his? No, I would not.
Bonus question answer: If a child accidentally got into someone else's house, I would assume they wouldn't be killed over it. Every effort should be made by the home owner to avoid that outcome.
I'm not happy at all about the gorilla being shot, and if there were ways to safely subdue him then I'm pissed as all fuck that those measures weren't taken.
However in the case of tranq vs bullet, knowing the tranq doesn't take immediate effect and would further agitate the gorilla, I can see why they would shoot him.
Not in support of it, because I know there HAD to be other ways to go about it. But I know it was just as difficult for the zookeepers to authorize the killing of the endangered beast as it is for me to keep seeing people saying the gorillas life doesn't matter.
I'm of the mindset that an animals life matters just as much as a humans life, especially an endangered species.
No need to shoot the gorilla, zoo officals could of gotten the boy out without any harm done. In my opinion the gorilla looked after the boy better than his mother did.
this was just a horrible situation any way you look at it. There is not reason why that child should have been in the cage, the parents of the child are at fault for the situation. Thats being said, the chid shouldn't have died but who's to say the gorilla would have killed the child. He was dragging the child around but it didn't look all that harmful. it seemed as if he was playing with him. I dont tame animals so i dont know how difficult it would have been to get the child out of the cage safely but i feel like killing the gorilla wasn't the only option they had.
Do you think it's realistic for a parent to be able to control their kids movement during the whole trip to the zoo? From what I understand the boy tripped.
What I was asking is do you think it's morally right to kill the gorilla because he may likely harm the boy, given that the boy got into the gorillas home?
yes its the parents fault! a child doesn't just "fall" into a gorilla cage. and i think they should have tried different things before just killing him
Yep the child went into the cage accidentally or by his accord. The parent did not want him in there. It would only be the parents fault if they're expected to be able to continuously control their kids movement.
I see. I guess they didn't try other things because there would be risk to the boy.
idc if the child went in there by himself... a child does that. it is the parents responsibility to control their child and know where they are at. If they were paying attention to their child, he wouldn't have been able to go into the cage. they couldnt have shot him in the shoulder? or brought food in his cage to get him distracted?
So you think it's realistic to continuously control a child's actions it sounds like. I personally think a boy falling or jumping (out of their desire) into a cage is possible under any parents watch. A child wanting to or tripping into a cage is just a very rare situation that's mostly unrelated to the parent. I do think some parents would do a better job at monitoring and directing their kid, but I don't think it's realistically possible to be able to control their movements 100% of the time, minus having some kind of leash or anchor attached to them. Even then it's still possible the parent may slip into the cage, dragging the kid.
It would have taken minutes before the dart worked. I'm not sure if food would have worked. I don't know how well it's bonded with employees. That would have been nice.
To me, there is no intrinsic value to any living thing over other living things, exactly. Everything that happens is just sort of random chance. Value is subjective to the question being asked and to others. The zookeepers who worked so hard to raise the gorilla for breeding are likely devastated. The family of the little boy would feel devastated too.
As far as the future implications... We won't know. Kid could grow up to be a murderer, who knows. Or he could be a Nobel Prize winner. Gorilla could have never managed to reproduce or he could've had a huge genetic and educational legacy helping bring the species back from extinction. In that way, future value does not exist.
I agree with you in many ways. The answer is pretty subjective. Most humans are biased and trying to rationalize why human life is worth more. I'm not implying I disagree with them either.
Gorilla are not human end of the story. as top of the food chain we come first.
A baby feel into the place with a animals and everyone like what about the gorillia. he dies it sucks but probably would died in the wild eventually.
I like how u people act like ur better than humanity by demonizing it. If u love animal life so much u and Jane goodal can go place Tarzan leave all ur lap tops and phones and shit and be one wild nature.
The gorllis is I a zoo to view for learning purposes. Not entertainment. I'm not going dance puppet dance. that a circus this a zoo. A person feel into the fucking cage with animal.
When a fucking dog chase a mail men u don't say well he was in his habitat it the mail man fault.
Thanks for your answer. I don't think I'm better than humanity and I wasn't trying to demonize it. I do respect the animal, especially when encroaching on their home.
Besides entertainment, I know zoos can spread awareness which can lead to empathy, which hopefully leads to resources and habit conservation for them.
I'm not sure what percentage of fault it is. If the boy really slipped into the cage, they can use a better safeguard.
I think a boy may have fell in the SF zoo. I forgot. But now there's a tall and thick plexy-glass wall in front of the gorillas. I remember that not being there years ago. It would be nice if they found a balance between being able to see them better and safety.
It was a sad and tragic thing to happen but ultimately the human life in that situation would trump the gorilla life. I'm all for animals and I'm a MAJOR softie for them but the risks were too high about what could happen to the toddler in that situation. I think if one puts yourself in the shoes of the parent and that's your baby you'd understand too why that was the best decision. But sad nevertheless. My heart hurts for any animal dying like that :(
The humans life was more important even given that the boy went into the animals home? I went in your home. I though you were potentially dangerous to me (you may not be). So I killed you. Of course that isn't okay because you're human, but if you were a gorilla then that's okay.
I have actually tried to put myself in the parents situation. Of course I can't really do that because I don't have a kid or a kid that fell in a gorilla cage, but I did think about it. Of course I wouldn't want my kid to be hurt or die but I do respect other intelligent life in a similar way. I wouldn't want to guarantee killing it. I feel like that's selfish. I just feel like that's it's home and I respect it in a way of pretty much having an equal opportunity at life as us. Thanks for your opinion though. I was really curious if anyone felt like me because I wouldn't have pulled the trigger.
I'm pretty sure if someday you have to choose between the life of your child (or any other loved one for that matter) and the life of a animal you'd go with the first. Let's be real now.
If I was asked a hypothetical question like which had to die then yeah. I feel different when considering the animal was just living in it's enclosure and we encroached on them. That's just how I feel.
I believe the gorillas life was worth less than the boy's yes. I'd much rather have a dead gorilla than a dead human child. Sure, it sucks that it happened. But we need to protect each other before we worry about protecting an animal.
No, anything could have happened and had the gorilla snapped then the child would be dead. We can communicate with other humans verbally and try to diffuse a situation, if the situation cannot be diffused then we'd have to take someone out in order to save another. We don't know what the gorilla is thinking, or how it would've responded to being hit with a tranquilizer. The zoo did what they thought was right and I agree with it. Like I said, a dead gorilla is better in my eyes than a mauled up dead child.
No, they could heve used a tranquilizer, then shut down the zoo, and evey other zoo and marineland based park. Then they could have brought the animals back to where they belong, or were captured from, and then the mother of the child could have been dropped off there too, maybe I'm joking
No the gorillas life is worth more because it was a critically endangered animal. The parents are stupid for not looking out for their child so it's not surprising that they bred a stupid son. That four year old boy was actually stupid for getting into the enclosure so natural selection should've killed him off already. It could've been the gorilla or whatever else. His stupidity will kill him soon.
You may have a point about the boy may die soon doing something else. There are witnesses that said they heard the boy saying he wanted to go in the cage. It sounds like the boy choose to go in there.
One day aliens will come here and take over and they'll probably think they are more important than us since they are more intelligent. Then the tables will turn and karma will bite our asses.
I think they did the right thing. It is very sad. But I am pissed at the parents who wasn't watching this little boy. They have to carry some of the blame what happened to the boy and the animal.
It's pretty natural to be biased towards ones self. I guess I do respect an animal like a gorilla. I feel especially empathetic towards it because it didn't ask for a visitor. And because there was a potential risk to the boy, the beast was killed. I know the shooter didn't want to kill him ultimately. I just find it kind of fascinating how the boys life is regarded that much more given trespassing in it's area. There was no hesitation to kill it.
It's like if I broke in your house, and I thought you were a threat so I killed you.
Yeah and looking at it from an importance to the species kind of view the life of the gorilla was actually way more important because this type is threatened by extinction while the boy is part of a race that's dramatically overpopulating this planet for multiple decades now. But you can't argue this from a logical point of view with the vast majority of humans. That's just how the world is.
That may not be politically correct to say and with respect to the little boys life, DRAMATICALLY OVERPOPULATED and growing, while the gorillas jungle is literally being deforested as we're typing. I agree lol. The gorilla being endangered is a good utilitarian point.
Yeah I'm not interested in arguing with them. I would talk to them in person about it, but I don't think people would really understand me well on the internet. Most seem to be offended pretty easily on topics like this on here, and having body language and tone can really help a person not feel offended (like on here) in person.
I know what you mean lol. I actually try to not piss people off. I think I irritated a few people just asking this question. People can get easily angry in person too though right lol. That's what I've found.
@somebodysaycheese *there And I'm not sure if we can call it a debate when people aren't gonna use logical arguments to advocate their stance which they won't because they are far too biased in this. I find that debates or discussions with biased people are usually pointless.
They thought getting hit by a dart may cause the gorilla to feel threatened and react with aggression, which even collateral damage could have squashed the squirt. It could have totally worked though too.
I agree. I understand bother perspectives too. I'm not sure what would have worked though. Maybe the mom could have jumped down there and distracted him? 😂 The only option I thought about is one of the staff that knew the gorilla could have went in there.
yeah so do i, I'm just a bit bothered by the hastiness of people to make the decision to kill an animal, without even understanding why it behaves in the way it does. LOL! that image. yeah exactly, OR they could have tranquillised it, OR built a proper enclosure that a kid can't fall into -.-
Lol yeah that one gorilla did do a great job. I don't think anybody would have touched the boy. This is the Cincinnati zoo gorilla though. www.cnn.com/.../
I think they did the right thing. sometimes with traqulizers it makes the animal more aggressive before it fell asleep. which likely would have lead to the childs death
I think because they thought he might hurt the boy while waiting a couple minutes for the drug to work. The Western lowland gorilla is critically endangered according to the WWF.
they should have an air rifle with darts to sedate such animals at all times. in belgium gorillas are behind strong glass, there is no way a kid could fall in their living space.
That's how the gorilla exhibit is in San Francisco too. It was a lot easier to see them when it wasn't there like ten years ago. I think a kid may have fell in that one too or they reacted to what happened somewhere else.
They thought getting hit by a dart may cause the gorilla to feel threatened and react with aggression, which even collateral damage could have squashed the squirt.
We have enough basketball players anyway 😁 I kind of agree with you with the gorilla, but it was a tough situation. Someone going in the cage to get it would have been nice.
how do you not see that's not a reason I mean holy shit I fucking know just tell me why the human life is more important. e. g. if someone said why is a jews life less important then went cos they're a jew that wouldn't work.
@Josht11 lots of reasons. the major reason is potential. one has it the other doesn't. another reason is one is human the other is a gorilla. if you can't see that as a reason i dont know what to tell you. sort of why eating a cow is ok but eating people isn't.
@Josht11 not unless the retard was going to hurt somebody. you can't just go around killing retards for the hell of it just like you shouldn't kill gorillas for the hell of it either.
so if a normal person fell into a retard enclosure and people were unsure about if the retard would do anything it would be fine to kill the retard because their potential was less.
Most Helpful Opinions