(June 1, 2016 at 12:28 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I'm appalled by the number of people on social media who have said they should not have killed the gorilla, EVEN IF that meant the boy would die instead. Their rationale was that the gorilla is endangered, and humans are not, so we should put his life above that of a human.
Funny thing is, I highly doubt they would be willing to martyr themselves or one of their own children or loved one for the cause if it was them in that sort of situation. They'd want the animal shot, regardless of whether or not it was endangered. But because it was someone else, and someone else's child, they feel perfectly fine saying the little boy should have been the one to die if that's what it took to keep the gorilla alive.
Yes CL! It's EASY to pass judgment and make claims of what SHOULD happen when you are not in that situation. That's why i said I don't envy that zookeepers judgment call on the necessity to use lethal force. We should make claims based on how we would react being the mother in that situation. You could be the President of PETA (though I don't know why you would be at a zoo) and if that was your child, you would pull the trigger yourself.
We are not made happy by what we acquire but by what we appreciate.