Articles
Boy vs. Gorilla
By now we have all heard about the unfortunate situation at the Cincinnati Zoo. In brief, a small boy fell into the gorilla exhibit and was in grave danger as a young male gorilla dragged him about the enclosure. To protect the child, the gorilla was shot and killed. It was obvious from the first news reports where this was headed: PETA and other radical animal activists were going to have a field day with the gorilla’s death.
As we have noted in recent sermons on placing Jesus at the center of our worldview, when God is removed from the equation values get turned upside down. We see this in the moral breakdown in our society. A million babies are killed every year in this country while most are unfazed. But shoot one lowland silverback gorilla and some people come unhinged.
Some of us recall the “life raft” exercise we had in school decades ago. Scenario: ship sinks; six survive; only room for five in the life raft. Which life is less valuable and, therefore, expendable? (In hindsight, I see little value in such discussions, especially foisted upon young, impressionable minds by a secular education system. The only goal, it seemed, was to question the sanctity of all human life.) At any rate, whose life is less important? Housewife? Terminally ill cancer patient? Doctor? Nuclear scientist? Weaker female? The injured?
The new twist on the life raft debate is whether or not human life is, in some situations, less valuable than animal life. Sometimes the discussion involves protection of animal rights relative to the destruction of their habitat, use in lab experiments, confinement in zoos, bullfighting, rewilding, etc. But in situations like the Cincinnati Zoo, the value of human life is directly pitted against the value of animal life. I haven’t read yet any claims that the child’s life was less important, but some are inching toward it:
“In a ridiculous attempt at attributing human qualities to animals The Gorilla Organization suggested that the zoo should have negotiated with the Gorilla offering it ‘food,’ ‘treats,’ ‘pineapple’ or ‘some kind of fruit.’ Animal lover and expert Jack Hanna even defended the zoos actions, describing how he’s seen gorillas ‘take a green coconut, which you can’t bust open with a sledgehammer and squish it…’ with ease. ‘You’re dealing with either human life or animal life here,’ Hanna explained” (Eliyahu Federman, 5/31/2016, foxnews.com).
I believe the pro-animal radicals are stopping just short of voicing their true thoughts for public relations reasons. It would be very damaging for them to openly say the gorilla should have been spared at risk to the child. Instead, they are attacking the zoo for inadequate barriers and for having animals in captivity in the first place. The parents are also faulted for not supervising their child more responsibly. (Some even “joked” that the parents should have been shot instead of the gorilla. Real subtle.)
But since the definition of humanity is already under debate (think abortion), let us consider the uniqueness of “personhood.” (The following is excerpted from Geisler and Turek’s I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist 131-132). The story involves a man named Pete Bocchino who served on a textbook committee for the state of Georgia. The committee was discussing curriculum of sixth-twelfth grade public school textbooks.
“When they were discussing psychology standards, Pete noted that the standards did not contain a definition of personhood. This was a gaping hole in the psychology curriculum; so Pete submitted the following definition:
Course: Psychology/Topic: Uniqueness
Standard: Evaluates the uniqueness of human nature and the concept of personhood.
1. intellect / conceptual thought
2. freedom to choose / free will
3. ethical responsibility (standards)
4. moral accountability (obligations), and
5. inalienable rights of personhood.
As soon as this standard was placed on the table, an educator sitting across from Pete – who had made it known that she was an atheist – was about to challenge this standard. Before she could do that, Pete stopped her and said to the group, ‘If anyone were to disagree with this standard, they would be doing the following:
1. That person would be engaging me in conceptual thought (as in 1 above).
2. That person would be exercising his/her ‘freedom’ to do so (as in 2 above).
3. That person must think that there is an ethical responsibility to teach what is right/true (as in 3 above).
4. That person is seeking to hold me morally accountable to teach the truth (as in 4 above).
5. That person has the right to disagree with my position (as in 5 above).
So if one were to disagree with these criteria, that person would actually confirm the validity of each point of these criteria.’”
Those acquainted with Scripture recognize a qualitative difference between humans and animals. “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing …” (Gn 1:26). While God has regard for all His creation, it is man that He exalts above the rest. It is humans that God loves and invites into His spiritual family. It is in human form that Jesus came to earth because it was man He intended to redeem. Only man has eternal spirit and a moral component that allows him to act with both mercy and justice.
It is regrettable that Harambe the gorilla had to be killed, but the debate should not be about the relative value of a gorilla vs. a little boy. Regardless of the mitigating circumstances, human life trumps animal life every time – if we truly understand the difference between them. Problem is, amid the present moral confusion, opinions and official policies reflect a lack of regard for human life and too much emphasis on animal rights and the environment. This is just one of the consequences of expunging God from our thinking.
