Little kid fall into gorilla enclosure (obviously negligent parental supervision). Kid is in there for 12 minutes. they sit togehter. The gorilla starts to drag the kid and is shot dead.
(1)Too soon, should have tired toi put gorilla out without killing, acted just right.
Second question: Investigate and either charge zoo for improper enclosure or parents for improper supervision.
In the case of any civil suit all proceeds should go to the family of the gorilla.
The video I'd like to see is what the mother was up to just prior to her kid getting into the exhibit.
Isn't this a form of a trolley problem in ethics? In this case, the zoo officials decided to turn the switch, thus killing the gorilla to save the child. If the gorilla was another human, they would never do this. However, genetically a gorilla is very close to a human. And the gorilla did nothing wrong except to be caught.
I'm not suggesting the zoo was wrong in killing the gorilla. I do think it is an interesting ethical decision.
Gorilla lives matter
foo wrote:
Isn't this a form of a trolley problem in ethics? In this case, the zoo officials decided to turn the switch, thus killing the gorilla to save the child. If the gorilla was another human, they would never do this. However, genetically a gorilla is very close to a human. And the gorilla did nothing wrong except to be caught.
I'm not suggesting the zoo was wrong in killing the gorilla. I do think it is an interesting ethical decision.
Just to ponder this issue a bit further and to look at the subjectivity of ethics.
Picture a situation where a baby gorilla falls, let say out of a tree, right in front of a human. The human looks at the baby gorilla for a moment and then picks it up. The father gorilla watches, doesn't know what the human will do, and suddenly jumps down and kills the human.
Justified?
This is probably what happened. The gorilla may have been simplu playing, but a human child is fragile compared to a gorilla baby, which can easily do one arm pullups like its nothing.
Gorillas are incredibly powerful animals.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3T0z1CT-nR8There must be over a billion kids in the world compared to very few gorillas.
Ergo - the gorilla was far more valuable than the child.
Conundrum wrote:
foo wrote:Isn't this a form of a trolley problem in ethics? In this case, the zoo officials decided to turn the switch, thus killing the gorilla to save the child. If the gorilla was another human, they would never do this. However, genetically a gorilla is very close to a human. And the gorilla did nothing wrong except to be caught.
I'm not suggesting the zoo was wrong in killing the gorilla. I do think it is an interesting ethical decision.
Just to ponder this issue a bit further and to look at the subjectivity of ethics.
Picture a situation where a baby gorilla falls, let say out of a tree, right in front of a human. The human looks at the baby gorilla for a moment and then picks it up. The father gorilla watches, doesn't know what the human will do, and suddenly jumps down and kills the human.
Justified?
Presumably you are kidding.
Human notions of "justifiable" simply to not apply to the actions of non-humans.
That said, the father gorilla jumping down and killing the human would be perfectly ordinary and certainly to be expected.
What The F? wrote:
Conundrum wrote:Just to ponder this issue a bit further and to look at the subjectivity of ethics.
Picture a situation where a baby gorilla falls, let say out of a tree, right in front of a human. The human looks at the baby gorilla for a moment and then picks it up. The father gorilla watches, doesn't know what the human will do, and suddenly jumps down and kills the human.
Justified?
Presumably you are kidding.
Human notions of "justifiable" simply to not apply to the actions of non-humans.
That said, the father gorilla jumping down and killing the human would be perfectly ordinary and certainly to be expected.
"simply do not apply"
Apologies for the typo.
"charge zoo for improper enclosure or parents for improper supervision."
-uhhhhh, I'd tend to go with the latter. Some idiot lets their kid run wild, and it cost a rare animal its life. Could have cost the kid's as well.
The zoo should have at least tried to talk the gorilla or distract him with bananas.
If the child was black would they still have shot the ape?
Magilla Gorilla didn't harm anyone. The trial will show a rush to judgement.
Some Animal rights activists can be such spiteful and disgruntled human beings. They're seriously butthurt the gorilla was killed? Yeah we get it animals are more important than humans, shut up and go eat your animal product for dinner you hypocrites!
They should have sent the kids mom in to get the child back.
Won't a woman do anything to save her child?
Leelldkdjdjdj wrote:
Some Animal rights activists can be such spiteful and disgruntled human beings. They're seriously butthurt the gorilla was killed? Yeah we get it animals are more important than humans, shut up and go eat your animal product for dinner you hypocrites!
Uhhh, humans are animals...
Conundrum wrote:
foo wrote:Isn't this a form of a trolley problem in ethics? In this case, the zoo officials decided to turn the switch, thus killing the gorilla to save the child. If the gorilla was another human, they would never do this. However, genetically a gorilla is very close to a human. And the gorilla did nothing wrong except to be caught.
I'm not suggesting the zoo was wrong in killing the gorilla. I do think it is an interesting ethical decision.
Just to ponder this issue a bit further and to look at the subjectivity of ethics.
Picture a situation where a baby gorilla falls, let say out of a tree, right in front of a human. The human looks at the baby gorilla for a moment and then picks it up. The father gorilla watches, doesn't know what the human will do, and suddenly jumps down and kills the human.
Justified?
If we believe that gorillas have the same ethics as we do or even that gorillas can comprehend ethics, then they are closer to humans than we think. And the decision to kill a close-to-human species/genus is even more questionable.
Tarzan Boy wrote:
They should have sent the kids mom in to get the child back.
Won't a woman do anything to save her child?
This ^
Sorta seriously.
If that was your child, (yeah, I know you wouldn't be stupid enough to let your child get into the enclosure in the first place but just go with the flow here for a moment), wouldn't you jump in to protect and retrieve him? I believe, and sure as hell hope, that I would.
Lots of hypocrisy on this thread but don't attack the mother. Unless you are a helicopter parent (which letsrunners would strongly disapprove of) or have the kid on a leash, it doesn't take minutes of parental inattention for a kid to get into trouble. It can happen in seconds and with even the best of parents, as anyone who's had young kids knows.
Mighty Joe wrote:
query? wrote:If the child was black would they still have shot the ape?
How could you tell the difference ?
You are a good person and you are right. There is no difference between a black child and a white child.
Is there a rule against attaching a helium balloon to yourself while running a road race?
Jakob Ingebrigtsen has a 1989 Ferrari 348 GTB and he's just put in paperwork to upgrade it
How rare is it to run a sub 5 minute mile AND bench press 225?
Am I living in the twilight zone? The Boston Marathon weather was terrible!
Mark Coogan says that if you could only do 3 workouts as a 1500m runner you should do these
Move over Mark Coogan, Rojo and John Kellogg share their 3 favorite mile workouts