Backlash after Gorilla Shot in Cincinnati Zoo (Updated)

[Valok]

Unless the Zoo had a way to completely imobilize the animal at a moment's notice.. I don't see any other way aside from shooting it (in the head).

Because of course if they decided to tranquilize the animal or something like it, but he gets mad before the effect kicks in and starts smashing the kid with both hands hulk-style, maybe also grabing it by the feet and throwing it around a bit a few times (while everything is being recorded)..

Well, it is safe to say that the international media, community and of course the police, would do everything in their power to drain the blood and the organs of those responsibles to put it in a altar as a sacrificial offering to the God of Justice.

 

[Saetha]

That mom not seeming that perturbed is an issue. A being of conscience would be crying themselves to sleep over what they caused to happen by their gross negligence.

And you only have to look at the mess of comments in this thread condoning the parents to see that most people don't agree with the mom's "accidents happen!" The gorilla's life wasn't worthless. Was worth as much as human child's? Probably not, given that the gorilla is even more easily replaceable than the child. Would the gorilla be worth more if the child were instead a brain dead vegetable, or if the gorilla was somehow the lynchpin for the entire species? Yeah, he probably would be.

But you're talking like no one cares about the gorilla. That there even is a backlash to be discussing would be proof enough to the contrary, I'd think.

 

[Bobular]

It's a terrible situation with a terrible outcome, I just can't see the zoo taking any other decision and I would have hated to have to be the one to shoot the gorilla as no doubt the keeper will have very mixed feelings about it for a while.

The issue that has to be dealt with in the aftermath is who's responsibility was it. I don't think we can place blame on the kid at 3 years old so it's either the parents or the zoo or possibly some mixture of both. I don't think its likely to be both, either the zoo had the correct barriers in place and maintained and the parents helped the kid over, maybe to get a better look, or the zoo did not have the correct barriers and the kid was able to make his way through on his own and the parents couldn't stop him.

 

[McElroy]

Ah, yes. The perfect misanthrope bait piece of news. A goat bucked me hard to the head in a petting zoo when I was a kid (they say I flew through the air like a cartoon character). I'm certain it would've done no good to take me away from my folks, even though it of course was their fault (I was only 3, and there were signs saying the goat was mean). These sort of things happen, and unfortunately this time it lead to the gorilla's end. I guess you could fine the parents, but this being America it would end up in court.

That mom not seeming that perturbed is an issue. A being of conscience would be crying themselves to sleep over what they caused to happen by their gross negligence.

Maybe her favourite novel is Congo.

 

[Saetha]

Neither the child nor gorilla can be replaced. If you see making new living beings as "replacing" others then I shudder at your view on life.

*Sigh* The "replacing" comment was intended to echo the first post expressing the same sentiment as you.

But thanks for the insult, I guess.

 

[RJ 17]

I'm with the people that are outraged on this! We should have let the child die rather than interrupt the process of Natural Selection! How are we as a species supposed to evolve if we do everything in our power to save the stupidest among us?

Idiocracy is both one of the funniest and one of the most terrifying movies I've ever seen.

 

[McElroy]

snip

I meant generally, Twitter and such. I however do find it misanthropic to have an expected level of empathy people must express or else they must be evil. But I get the idea: more empathy, more respect for all life. Too bad we're so self-centered (myself probably most of all). You can hardly expect people to care about animals when we hardly give a damn about some 700 refugees drowning in the Mediterranean this past week and so on.

 

[lacktheknack]

I can correctly call you a biased anthrocentrist. It doesn't mean much, most humans are.

I happily hold the title. Bias ain't always a bad thing.

From the point of view of possibly intelligent nonhumans that we have oppressed, it can be. I have met humans who I would only save after I saved other animals. To say that humans are fundamentally better is such hubris. Nonhuman intelligence is not necessarily worse or lesser. Sentient's rights matter, even if not human.

Unfortunately, none of my reasons for regarding humanity as the greater have a single whit to do with intelligence or sentience and everything to do with pre-distributed value, but I get the feeling that you aren't religious and this argument could go a very depressing direction if it continues further.

I'm pretty sure taking religion and dogmatic values of things only improves the discourse.

It's quite fine with me to reason that a human life is worth more to us. It's deplorable to me to value a human more than a gorilla just because 'God said so' or some such.

If God is real, and declared humans worth more, then it's hardly deplorable, it's simply what is. That said, I was trying to AVOID this, so I won't follow any further.

 

[Tropical]

If your child falls into a pen "accidentally" you should let nature play it?s course, let the child die if that is what the outcome is.

Tough luck, make a new one, regret your actions, and maybe do better in round 2.

 

[RaikuFA]

Idiocracy is both one of the funniest and one of the most terrifying movies I've ever seen.

Same. I mean I'm not a smart guy but I have enough common sense to not leave a 3 year old unattended at a public place, even for a second.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Gorilla did nothing wrong. Child broke the law. Should be shot. That's how the US works right?

Only if the person is white. If they're black, it's okay to shoot or even strangle them without any laws being broken.

 

[CaitSeith]

Once again, The Simpsons called it years in advance:

Spoiler

 

[Gorrath]

I can correctly call you a biased anthrocentrist. It doesn't mean much, most humans are.

I happily hold the title. Bias ain't always a bad thing.

From the point of view of possibly intelligent nonhumans that we have oppressed, it can be. I have met humans who I would only save after I saved other animals. To say that humans are fundamentally better is such hubris. Nonhuman intelligence is not necessarily worse or lesser. Sentient's rights matter, even if not human.

Unfortunately, none of my reasons for regarding humanity as the greater have a single whit to do with intelligence or sentience and everything to do with pre-distributed value, but I get the feeling that you aren't religious and this argument could go a very depressing direction if it continues further.

No I don't consider myself religious. At least I can respect the religious basis of anthrocentrism. If you truly believe in a religious paradigm then I can see why you'd value humans so much.


I don't have that view so I see anthrocentrism as an inherent bias of our species. Wolves are probably lupocentric on some level so it may just be an inherent us vs them mentality.

Everyone else that says a human's life always takes precedence over an (nonhuman) animal's life just because they are human just strike me as having an inherent anthrocentrist propensity. I simply can't agree that human lives are always worth more than nonhuman lives. There are both humans and non-humans I know who would be exceptions to that.

Sorry, I know you've already been embroiled in a discussion over this but I wanted to add my two cents and see what you thought. IN a direct comparison between that particular gorilla and that child, I would actually value the gorilla's life more. It's a utilitarian moral position where we have shit-tons of humans and very few gorillas so the math makes sense. The problem is that the utilitarian argument has no real bounds. We value human life more than that of animals because, if we don't, there's no reason not to purge a few billion human beings to preserve those animals. Who do we entrust to decide which humans are worth less than the animals we want to save?

I am reminded of the short story The Lottery, wherein each year a small town holds a lottery to determine who gets to be sacrificed for the harvest season. It's a totally fair system that they use but it only seems fair up until you are the one being stoned to death. Even if I could support the idea that the gorrila's life is more valuable than a single child because of the numbers, if that beast had a hold of my wife I'd shoot the beast myself. NO way I could bring myself to watch my wife in such danger and just think, "well, gorillas are almost extinct, so I guess she has to die." If I can't expect that kind of sacrifice of my wife, I could never expect that sacrifice of anyone else either.

 

[Areloch]

Wow, there's some furious intellectual masturbation going on in here.

It's like the real-life version of the 'would you save a dog or a person from a whirlpool' threads we used to have.

On topic: I'd really like to know the circumstances that lead to the kid getting in there in the first place. Every zoo I've been to or seen makes that night impossible to just 'whoopsie' into. Given the circumstances, the zoo did what they are obligated to do, but I do feel that without an exceptionally good reason the parents should be fined and give reperations to the zoo so they can get a replacement gorilla.

As for the "Zoos are evil" comments, lots of zoos are WAY more than "animals in cages" including doing research, conservation efforts, breeding to increase numbers for endangered species and educating the populous about animals, their habitats and things that can be done to help them.

Zoos do far more good than they do harm in this way.

 

[maninahat]

I like the misleading text on the Guardian link: "gorilla-shot-cincinnati-zoo-child".

It's an unfortunate situation and it isn't up for armchair zookeepers like me to decide when a Gorilla is posing a threat to a kid's life. Also, I find it hard to make a judgement about whether the boy's or the gorilla's life was "more valuable".

Perhaps there is only one fair solution.

Shoot them both.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

I can correctly call you a biased anthrocentrist. It doesn't mean much, most humans are.

I happily hold the title. Bias ain't always a bad thing.

From the point of view of possibly intelligent nonhumans that we have oppressed, it can be. I have met humans who I would only save after I saved other animals. To say that humans are fundamentally better is such hubris. Nonhuman intelligence is not necessarily worse or lesser. Sentient's rights matter, even if not human.

Unfortunately, none of my reasons for regarding humanity as the greater have a single whit to do with intelligence or sentience and everything to do with pre-distributed value, but I get the feeling that you aren't religious and this argument could go a very depressing direction if it continues further.

I'm pretty sure taking religion and dogmatic values of things only improves the discourse.

It's quite fine with me to reason that a human life is worth more to us. It's deplorable to me to value a human more than a gorilla just because 'God said so' or some such.

If God is real, and declared humans worth more, then it's hardly deplorable, it's simply what is. That said, I was trying to AVOID this, so I won't follow any further.

It would be deplorable all the same to decide morality just based on what someone else said.