Are human lives more valuable or of more worth than those of other species?

[illykitty]

The kid snuck in. He got in on purpose. I posted about that situation here: http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/obama-shoots-king-kong.187808/#post-4769093

Okay well, having read all the details, seems like they were morons. It's tragic that he was killed.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Okay well, having read all the details, seems like they were morons. It's tragic that he was killed.

Mmhmm. That's why most of the Internet appears to be enraged about it and there's multiple petitions going around about it. I was actually one of the early pissed off people, going off about it on Twitter on Saturday night.

 

[Vouthon]

This is a very difficult "case" and it raises complicated moral dilemmas that reach to the very core of ethical reasoning, jurisprudence and philosophical considerations. It also raises the issue of whether we should have zoos at all, in which animals are held to be oggled at by humans. There is a valid argument that the artificial environment of a zoo can protect endangered species that would go extinct in the wild - raising their numbers artificially so as to perhaps reintroduce them back into the wild at a later stage.

Yet this case shows the corollary: it may have been better for Harambe never to be kept in a zoo in the first place. Had he not been, this beautiful creature may still be living, freely roaming around out there in the wild, instead of dying in these tragic circumstances.

Now to the situation at hand....

A perfectly innocent, vulnerable child found himself placed in a potentially life-threatening situation. In fear of what could have transpired, zoo keepers made a snap decision - out of instantaneous fear for the child's life - to shoot and kill a gorilla belonging to an endangered species, who had been much loved by everyone - including the zoo keepers.

As others have argued, I first wish to say that I am incredibly incensed at the gross negligence of both the parents and whoever constructed the holding pen. The parents clearly failed in a duty of care towards their child, who should have been under round the clock supervision while in the zoo. Something like this should have been foreseeable to happen based upon the curious nature of many little boys - and to this end I also attach significant blame to whoever constructed the holding pen for not making it more secure.

The parents, as I see it, by means of their gross negligence have indirectly led to the death of an animal belonging to an endangered species. Their inaction as regards their child was reckless.

In terms of this debate over the worth of human lives compared with animal lives...

Let me first make an arguement that does not rely on "species" distinction in the hopes of transcending the gulf between posters here on this issue.

This is an arguement I will call the "criterion of vulnerability". To understand it, you only need to consider the saying attributed to Jesus:

"The least among all of you is the greatest"

​

If we apply this statement to ethics, we are left to conclude that our innate sense of justice should always place greater moral value on the side of those deemed to be the more vulnerable and helpless in any potentially dangerous situation, where the weaker party is exposed to the possibility of proportionately greater harm if action is not taken on his/her behalf.

Consider this: if you were to see a small, defenceless Labrador puppy potentially about to be set upon by a hyena, whom would your natural sense of compassion orient towards?

If you do not answer "the puppy," then I would say there is something deeply wrong with your ability to experience empathy.

We have a natural disposition to accord greater moral value and security to whatever being is deemed more vulnerable in a given relationship or situation.

Thus, I think that no moral blame can be attached to the man who fired the shot at the gorilla.

This was a giant, fully matured, adult gorilla.

The child was placed at a massive disadvantage on account of his diminutive size, unawareness of the potential danger faced and so forth.

Therefore in this situation, quite apart from anything to do with species distinction, and whether or not the gorilla actually was going to cause grievous bodily harm or death to the child, I believe that the zoo-keeper had an innate moral obligation to do everything in his power to make sure that the more vulnerable party in this situation - the child - remained unharmed.

That he had to kill a beautiful, large animal belonging to an endangered species to evade that ghastly possibility, is a colossal tragedy indirectly attributable to the negligence of the child's parents.

But the zoo-keeper had to act. Placed in the same situation, irrespective of my genuine feelings of remorse for Harambe, I would have done the same. I don't think I'd have even thought about - it would have been an instinctive, instantaneous desire to protect the more vulnerable party at all costs.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

A perfectly innocent, vulnerable child

You've lost me. I do not view children as being innately innocent. Vulnerable due to their physical weakness, sure, but not necessarily innocent. Some children are horrible little demons. Look at any playground, elementary and middle school. There's children who have murdered people and there's little psychopaths who have tortured animals to death.

As for this child, I see him as a brat. Sure, children want to explore, but by 4 years old, you should know not to crawl into the habitat of such animals. He is not an infant or even a toddler. He went in there despite adults telling him "no" and trying to stop him. He certainly has his share of the blame in this, although I'll grant he may not completely understand it yet. But I hope he'll be made to understand it soon. Harambe was more innocent than the boy was, in this case.

 

[Vouthon]

You've lost me. I do not view children as being innately innocent.

I am referring to "innocence" with regards to the potential and disproportionate harm that potentially awaited him from a much, bigger, bodily stronger animal without his knowing.

I am speaking of vulnerability, lack of awareness of imminent danger etc.

 

[Vouthon]

As for this child, I see him as a brat. Sure, children want to explore, but by 4 years old, you should know not to crawl into the habitat of such animals. He is not an infant or even a toddler. He went in there despite adults telling him "no" and trying to stop him. He certainly has his share of the blame in this, although I'll grant he may not completely understand it yet. But I hope he'll be made to understand it soon. Harambe was more innocent than the boy was, in this case.

You are morally judging a 4 year old child to be a "brat" because he wandered into a holding pen with a giant primate?

That's insane and insensitive to me.

Children are vulnerable not only because of their size, lack of bodily strength etc. but because of their lack of experience of danger and tendency not to be aware of imminent harm to their persons.

A 4 year old child is a million times more vulnerable than a fully-grown, adult primate and cannot be judged for not knowing when a situation is dangerous given that they are still nearly wholly dependent on the supervision of adults - adults who failed to properly watch over their dependant child and thus indirectly led to this tragic outcome.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I am referring to "innocence" with regards to the potential and disproportionate harm that potentially awaited him from a much, bigger, bodily stronger animal without his knowing.

I am speaking of vulnerability, lack of awareness of imminent danger etc.

Okay.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You are morally judging a 4 year old child to be a "brat" because he wandered into a holding pen with a giant primate?

That's insane and insensitive to me.

Children are vulnerable not only because of their size, lack of bodily strength etc. but because of their lack of experience of danger and tendency not to be aware of imminent harm to their persons.

A 4 year old child is a million times more vulnerable than a fully-grown, adult primate.

Yes, I am judging him because adults told him not to and tried to stop him, and he wouldn't listen. Now a gorilla - who was not obviously trying to hurt him - is dead because of his recklessness. Screw that kid, and screw the bystanders who started freaking out, making the situation worse when Harambe was actually being rather calm and concerned toward the boy.

In case you didn't know, there's been multiple other cases of children ending up in gorilla enclosures, but none of the gorillas were killed in those situations: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...on-young-children-zoo-falls-article-1.2654655

 

[Vouthon]

Yes, I am judging him because adults told him not to and tried to stop him, and he wouldn't listen. Now a gorilla - who was not obviously trying to hurt him - is dead because of his recklessness. Screw that kid, and screw the bystanders who started freaking out, making the situation worse when Harambe was actually being rather calm and concerned toward the boy.

Children have an innate tendency not to listen precisely because they have little experience of danger to fall back on to judge a dangerous situation. The playfulness of their nature leads them to judge almost everything as a game and think that they can go anywhere, do anything without harm.

Knowledge of potential harm only comes with physical and mental maturation, as well as life experience.

So you cannot blame a child for being naturally disobedient to his parents in light of his playful, curious nature and lack of awareness of potential danger.

Your simply mistaken on this point.

The child himself is faultless. Moral culpability cannot be attached to a 4 year old boy doing the things 4 year old boys are won't to do by nature.

Apportion blame to the parents yes, who have moral responsibility and a duty of care. But for blimey's sake not the child.

 

[Akivah]

Let me put it this way:

If my house is on fire and I only have time to save my wife or my two cats, I'm saving my wife.

Let me put it this way, if I'm passing a stranger's house on fire and only have time to save a human or an animal, I'm saving the human.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Children have an innate tendency not to listen precisely because they have little experience of danger to fall back on to judge a dangerous situation. The playfulness of their nature leads them to judge almost everything as a game and think that they can go anywhere, do anything without harm.

Knowledge of potential harm only comes with physical and mental maturation, as well as life experience.

So you cannot blame a child for being naturally disobedient to his parents in light of his playful, curious nature and lack of awareness of potential danger.

Your simply mistaken on this point.

The child himself is faultless. Moral culpability cannot be attached to a 4 year old boy doing the things 4 year old boys are won't to do by nature.

You really want to use the "we can't place moral culpability because he was simply acting out of his nature" argument? You really want to pursue that line of thought? So a kid of the same age who decides to vivisect a puppy or a kitten shouldn't be viewed as morally responsible for their actions, either? How about that 7 year old at a zoo in Australia who broke into a reptile exhibit in 2008 and went on a brutal killing spree? Is he not responsible for his actions? I mean, the brain apparently doesn't completely mature until about the mid-20s, so why should anyone below that age be held responsible for their actions?

Oh, and: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/astonishing-new-footage-shows-gorilla-8082168

 

[illykitty]

Mmhmm. That's why most of the Internet appears to be enraged about it and there's multiple petitions going around about it. I was actually one of the early pissed off people, going off about it on Twitter on Saturday night.

Yeah well, I'm quite out of the loop frankly, to maintain what little sanity I've got left. I avoid social media like the plague and only look at news once in a while, since it makes me feel frustrated, angry and sad most of the time. That is on top of my online activism which often involves horrible things. I'm surprised how I haven't got any email to sign a petition about about this yet.

I'm going to look up a petition about it now. Sometimes they do make a difference. Edit: Done.

 

[Vouthon]

You really want to use the "we can't place moral culpability because he was simply acting out of his nature" argument? You really want to pursue that line of thought? So a kid of the same age who decides to vivisect a puppy or a kitten shouldn't be viewed as morally responsible for their actions, either?

Why would it be considered normal for a 7 year old child to want to harm a puppy or go on a killing spree? That is abnormal, antisocial behaviour.

Something is clearly wrong with how that child has been raised or their own mental state.

But to wander into a holding pen in a zoo without foreseeing harm...yes, that's perfectly to be expected for a child who isn't being properly supervised by an adult in a potentially dangerous environment in a zoo without good enough security measures. I do not expect a child to forsee risks to his person under such circumstances.

And that's where I'm leaving this discussion between us.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Why would it be considered normal for a 7 year old child to want to harm a puppy?

Something is clearly wrong with how that child has been raised or their own mental state.

But to wander into a holding pen in a zoo without foreseeing harm...yes, that's perfectly to be expected for a child who isn't being properly supervised by an adult in a potentially dangerous environment in a zoo without good enough security measures.

And that's where I'm leaving this discussion between us.

An extreme example, sure, but it shows the fallacy of your "it's in his nature" argument. You can justify anything with that argument, since everything humans do is in our nature. Children get into trouble for disobeying adults all the time, so people in general obviously don't accept your argument. Children are expected to learn how to control themselves and listen to instruction. The boy didn't. So of course he's at fault, just like any other kid would be at fault for being disobedient. They may not completely understand the full ramifications of their actions, but they can understand basic right from wrong, such not disobeying adults.

 

[Vouthon]

An extreme example, sure, but it shows the fallacy of your "it's in his nature" argument. You can justify anything with that argument, since everything humans do is in our nature. Children get into trouble for disobeying adults all the time, so people in general obviously don't accept your argument. Children are expected to learn how to control themselves and listen to instruction. The boy didn't. So of course he's at fault, just like any other kid would be at fault for being disobedient. They may not completely understand the full ramifications of their actions, but they can understand basic right from wrong, such not disobeying adults.

The last thing I'll say is that there is a normal, foreseeable, expected continuum of behaviours.

A killing spree isn't among them - but an un-supervised 4 year old child wandering off on his own to explore strange big animals, hiding spots and to play games in a zoo certainly is.

Your logic is fallacious here, not mine.

I am now bowing out of our discussion and will not provide an answer to any subsequent reply should it concern this particular issue. You know my stance, I can see yours.

I wish you a nice evening.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The last thing I'll say is that there is a normal, foreseeable, expected continuum of behaviours.

A killing spree isn't among them - but an un-supervised 4 year old child wandering off on his own to explore strange big beasts and play games in a zoo certainly is.

Your logic is fallacious here, not mine.

I am now bowing out of our discussion and will not provide an answer to any subsequent reply.

I wish you a nice evening.

You have a nice evening, too, but the point still stands that children are certainly liable to moral culpability and the "nature" argument is no argument at all.

 

[BSM1]

Nope. Provide your reasoning, please.

That one child's life was more valuable than all the Silver Back Gorillas that are walking the earth combined. You can let your heart bleed for the gorilla all you want but you would never be able to justify allowing the animal to kill the child under any circumstance. Unfortunately there was no other viable choice, the animal had to be neutralized quickly because you cannot reason with a wild animal. When we can sit down face-to-face and reason with beasts that kill out of instinct then you may have a case for the value of an animal's life compared to a human's.

 

[Acim]

Children have an innate tendency not to listen precisely because they have little experience of danger to fall back on to judge a dangerous situation. The playfulness of their nature leads them to judge almost everything as a game and think that they can go anywhere, do anything without harm.

Knowledge of potential harm only comes with physical and mental maturation, as well as life experience.

So you cannot blame a child for being naturally disobedient to his parents in light of his playful, curious nature and lack of awareness of potential danger.

Your simply mistaken on this point.

The child himself is faultless. Moral culpability cannot be attached to a 4 year old boy doing the things 4 year old boys are won't to do by nature.

Apportion blame to the parents yes, who have moral responsibility and a duty of care. But for blimey's sake not the child.

I'll never understand how anyone can argue that a child is not responsible for the actions they take. I get that they aren't entirely responsible for the consequences (of other things/people) in the environment/situation. The same holds true with adults.

This, to me, is where we are literally unable to discuss the situation in a reasonable way if we cannot see a person as responsible for their own actions.

Admittedly though, equivocating responsibility with fault does exacerbate judgment of the situation, or all situations. Like, I don't see what the child did was (inherently) wrong, but do see the child responsible for getting themselves into a cage where an adult ape resides.

Had the place where onlookers are suggested to observe animals been intentionally designed for them to fall into the cage, I can see how the zoo would be responsible. That it is an arguably poor design (where once every 40 years a child will demonstrate the poor design), means some responsibility is on the zoo.

Harambe strikes me as 'perfectly innocent' as the child, and it was the child that went into Harambe's space, not the other way around.

 

[Vouthon]

I'll never understand how anyone can argue that a child is not responsible for the actions they take. I get that they aren't entirely responsible for the consequences (of other things/people) in the environment/situation. The same holds true with adults.

This, to me, is where we are literally unable to discuss the situation in a reasonable way if we cannot see a person as responsible for their own actions.

Admittedly though, equivocating responsibility with fault does exacerbate judgment of the situation, or all situations. Like, I don't see what the child did was (inherently) wrong, but do see the child responsible for getting themselves into a cage where an adult ape resides.

Had the place where onlookers are suggested to observe animals been intentionally designed for them to fall into the cage, I can see how the zoo would be responsible. That it is an arguably poor design (where once every 40 years a child will demonstrate the poor design), means some responsibility is on the zoo.

Harambe strikes me as 'perfectly innocent' as the child, and it was the child that went into Harambe's space, not the other way around.

I appreciate your distinction between "fault" and "responsibility" which is severely wanting in Saint_Frankenstein's approach to the issue.

Nevertheless, I reiterate that it could not have been foreseeable to the child - based upon a young child's lack of experience of danger, tendency to believe that adult discipline is to do with denying playtime rather than for security and the lack of mature mental judgement needed to reason out that he was entering an animal lair where the situation that transpired could have occured.

So I say that the child is both faultless and not culpable for his own safety. He is dependant on his parents for supervision and security - as well as the other adults in the building.

In the situation, the child was faultless, unsuspecting of danger and beyond doubt the most vulnerable being in that holding pen.

Thus he had to be protected at all costs. But his parents and whoever was in charge of zoo security are the culpable ones here.

 

[Acim]

I appreciate your distinction between "fault" and "responsibility" which is severely wanting in Saint_Frankenstein's approach to the issue.

Nevertheless, I reiterate that it could not have been foreseeable to the child - based upon a young child's lack of experience of danger, tendency to believe that adult discipline is to do with denying playtime rather than for security and the lack of mature mental judgement needed to reason out that he was entering an animal lair.

So I say that the child is both faultless and not culpable for his own safety. He is dependant on his parents for supervision and security - as well as the other adults in the building.

In the situation, the child was faultless, unsuspecting of danger and beyond doubt the most vulnerable being in that holding pen.

Thus he had to be protected at all costs. But his parents and whoever was in charge of zoo security are the most culpable here.

You'd also agree that the ape was faultless too, yes?

Personally, I don't even see the big deal with finding fault in this (or many) situations. For sure not up to the level where lots of money is owed and/or heads should (figuratively) roll. An ape's life was lost and that is a tragedy, but the people responsible for that ape's life (and care) decided to make that decision. IMO, they are the one's dealing with actual tragedy. Because human life does matter, you'd think we all be pleased as punch the child is virtually unscathed in what any adult reading this would never want to experience.

If we had to discuss fault, I could not bring myself to letting the child off scott free. But even less able to see a desire to punish any one, including the child for what occurred. Yet, I get how parent neglect operates and how zoo's design operates in terms of legal battles and is where I'm confident some form of punishment will be sought. Can't have this much attention on something and not give off at least the appearance of a head rolling to satisfy the vengeful amongst us.