The morality of killing gorilla Harambe and communitarianism

Happiness

A boy fell into the enclosure of the gorilla Harambe. Fearing for the boy's safety, the zoo swiftly killed Harambe.

To many people, it is morally acceptable to kill Harambe because of the threat (they think) he posed to the boy. And a large part of this argument can be traced back to the moral obligation of loyalty, in this case, to specieshood, in the terms proposed by communitarianism, that is, one has a moral obligation towards one's family/community/country/specieshood to the extent that that obligation could violate some universal moral principles. But without this moral obligation to specieshood, the killing of Harambe would be outrageously wrong, because the killing was done preemptively before any conclusive imminent threat. There was no conclusive evidence or indication that Harambe posed an imminent threat to the boy, and so the killing of Harambe is unjust. Is it moral to value human life over another species' life? How about a dog's life over a cat's life over an elephant's life over a tiger's life? What is your justification?

If one of your family members is a fugitive, is reporting him/her to the authorities the moral thing to do? What if that family member is a bad parent, who abused you? Would it change your action?

If you found out your housemate/friend is cheating, is it moral to expose him/her?

If you know your country is going to use biological or chemical weapons, which are banned by UN conventions, on innocent lives in the enermy country, is it moral to report it to the UN?

BC

We could judge the morality of an act on a flat plane: all sentient life is equal; no species is superior; every individual creature matters equally; you and a penguin are equally valuable. Humans (who devise morality) do not judge morality that way. We arrange it on a vertical scale where some creatures are more valuable than others.

The best we can do (given our predilection for placing ourselves at the top) is give sincere respect to other creatures.

In the case of guerrilla Harambe, we value the boy's life more than the guerrilla's life. Guerrillas are inordinately strong, and even if Harambe didn't intend harm, he (she?) might have accidentally killed the child.

Was it better for Harambe to be in a zoo, or should Harambe have been left in the forest? If guerrilla's homelands are being destroyed for agriculture, is it better to have a few guerrillas in zoos or none at all?

Hypothetical: If there are, all totaled, 10,000 guerrillas and elephants left, would we consider it moral and just to guarantee the two species' survive in perpetuity IF we killed 10,000 people? A difficult choice, maybe, if you knew any of the 10,000 people. But I grieve the loss of intelligent animals, including humans. But there are 7.5 billion of us, and so few guerrillas and elephants. And so few whales, and so on.

Herg

But without this moral obligation to specieshood, the killing of Harambe would be outrageously wrong, because the killing was done preemptively before any conclusive imminent threat. There was no conclusive evidence or indication that Harambe posed an imminent threat to the boy, and so the killing of Harambe is unjust. — Happiness

Primatologists Jane Goodall and Frans de Waal both stated that the child was at risk of being killed, if only because the gorilla was so immensely strong. There was, in their opinion (which is more to be trusted than any of ours) an imminent threat.

Is it moral to value human life over another species' life?

Unanswerable, because we don't know what it is like to be a member of another species.

ssu

Bitter Crank, gorilla or guerilla?

I think that guerillas are far more dangerous than gorillas, even if there actually are quite few of them also. Yet usually you don't eradicate them by trying to kill them all, that likely just creates more of them. :wink:

(What has the OP to do with patriotism?)

Happiness

Primatologists Jane Goodall and Frans de Waal both stated that the child was at risk of being killed, if only because the gorilla was so immensely strong. There was, in their opinion (which is more to be trusted than any of ours) an imminent threat. — Herg

That is their opinion, not conclusive evidence or indication.

tim wood

If one of your family members is a fugitive, is reporting him/her to the authorities the moral thing to do? What if that family member is a bad parent, who abused you? Would it change your action? — Happiness

Antigone. More recently, Whitey and Billy Bulger. My own view is that family and society/community are different things with different rights and obligations - which can overlap. Billy, Whitey's younger brother, told Whitey to keep out of his (Billy's) life, which request Whitey apparently respected.

The mechanism that seems to me to work is that the good "estranges" him- or herself from the bad. Only in that way can the good meet their familial and social obligations. If the bad pushes it, pushes his badness into the family, then the family doesn't owe him anything, while they still owe the community.

BC

Bitter Crank, gorilla or guerilla? — ssu

Fucking homonyms. Fucking auto-correct.

Baden

(What has the OP to do with patriotism?) — ssu

Nothing, apparently. Edited the title.

Herg

Primatologists Jane Goodall and Frans de Waal both stated that the child was at risk of being killed, if only because the gorilla was so immensely strong. There was, in their opinion (which is more to be trusted than any of ours) an imminent threat.
— Herg

That is their opinion, not conclusive evidence or indication. — Happiness

Are you seriously claiming that all opinions on such a subject are equally good? Of course they aren't. Goodall and de Waal are experts in primate behaviour; you, I assume, are not. Get real.

As for 'conclusive evidence', in order to get that, the zookeepers would have had to wait and see whether the gorilla injured the child. That would have been utterly immoral and irresponsible.

Happiness

↪Herg

Are you seriously claiming that all opinions on such a subject are equally good? Of course they aren't. Goodall and de Waal are experts in primate behaviour; you, I assume, are not. Get real. — Herg

I'm not questioning the expertise of Goodall and de Waal. I'm questioning whether the principles of communitarianism can be consistently applied.

Someone may feel it's right to kill Harambe, yet at the same time feel it's not right if the plan by his country to use biological or chemical weapons on innocent lives is not reported to the UN. In this case then, he is not being consistent: he is a communitarian in the first case but not so in the second case.

As for 'conclusive evidence', in order to get that, the zookeepers would have had to wait and see whether the gorilla injured the child. That would have been utterly immoral and irresponsible. — Herg

To the communitarians, it would be utterly immoral and irresponsible. But to the non-communitarians, it would be utterly immoral and irresponsible to kill Harambe.

Terrapin Station

Is it moral to value human life over another species' life? — Happiness

I'm fine with speciesism, yes.

How about a dog's life over a cat's life over an elephant's life over a tiger's life? What is your justification? — Happiness

I'd favor the cat.

Morality is ultimately just our individual dispositions, the way we feel about interpersonal behavior as individuals. That's the justification. It's how I feel. That's the only justification anyone can ultimately have when it comes to this stuff.

If one of your family members is a fugitive, is reporting him/her to the authorities the moral thing to do? — Happiness

For me it would be a combination of (a) the exact situation, including whether I think that what they did should be illegal, (b) my feelings about that family member, (c) my assessment of practical matters for them, re whether I think it would be practically better to be caught rather than to remain a fugitive, and (d) the risk to myself in not reporting them.

If you found out your housemate/friend is cheating, is it moral to expose him/her? — Happiness

Cheating romantically you mean? I'd never expose that. I'm not in favor of monogamy. I think monogamy is unreasonable. So I don't think it's moral to basically demand it.

If you know your country is going to use biological or chemical weapons on innocent lives in the enermy country, which are banned by UN conventions, is it moral to report it to the UN? — Happiness

Yes, I'd definitely report that.

Terrapin Station

I'm not questioning the expertise of Goodall and de Waal. I'm questioning whether the principles of communitarianism can be consistently applied. — Happiness

?? That has nothing to do with their opinions on whether the child was in phyiscal danger.

Someone may feel it's right to kill Harambe, yet at the same time feel it's not right if the plan by his country to use biological or chemical weapons on innocent lives is not reported to the UN. In this case then, he is not being consistent: — Happiness

It could only be inconsistent via the way that you're conceptually abstracting things/dividing things up. Likely they're not at all thinking about it in the same way that you are.

In my case, for example, I'm fine with specieism. I'm fine with valuing humans over other animals.

I'm not fine with war in general, so long as it's at all avoidable, and I'm not fine with killing a bunch of civilians in a war if it's at all avoidable.

For me, we're talking about two very different ideas. My views have absolutely nothing to do with "communitarianism."

The morality of killing gorilla Harambe and communitarianism

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions