Justification for saving or killing the lion !!!!!!
Saving is good as long as we are not victimized. Sad but true , my grandmother would tell this, when water runs over your head ,a mother monkey carrying her baby would step on the baby to save herself !!!
That is nature !!!
If a lion attacks a zebra, with probability the fact would be related to the instinct of survival and not for the conscious evil of wanting to kill; both are part of the trophic chain of an ecological niche, where the zebra is the lion's food (the herbivores are food for the carnivores).
If given the circumstances I could avoid this death, I would not do it by killing the lion, but by preserving both lives valuable to nature in general.
Hello,
God has created life in the best order possible. In the cycle of life, we are all related in mysterious ways. Lion's attacking and eating a zebra is part of the cycle. My intervention to save the zebra by terminating the lion's life is not justified unless I could do so by resorting to ways which do not put lion's life in jeopardy.
Best regards,
R. Biria
Yes,there are situations like that. Human being have to be knowledgeable and support food chain and food web in order to assist nature.Thanks
to C. Lewis Kausel"
God should kill all of us - anyway - sooner or later: all of us : meat eaters, fisheaters and vegetarians
This is a very difficult situation...I will listen to what my trained conscience tell me to do at that very instance
Most humans feel an urge to defend what seems to be defenseless. So most humans, if they could scare away the lion (I don't know about killing the lion, though), would probably feel an urge to do so. Even knowing that the lion has to eat sooner or later, we probably would prefer if that activity occurred while we weren't looking!!
We consume meat too, after all. Like Cecilia says, what makes us so special in this regard? And I'm pretty sure plants don't appreciate being eaten either, by the way. Plants too react to threats, right?
There’s a number of scenarios where saving the zebra might be justified, starting from pity for its young or empathy for its situation (as one living thing for another) all the way to wishing to have the zebra (or the lion, or both) for oneself to eat. But in the big scheme of things I think any argument can be countered with an opposing one. So your opinion is as good as mine in the situation, which brings us to situational ethics (not exactly a doctrine, more of an agnostic position I believe). Maybe the next question should be whether this problem works hard enough to produce new insights or whether it is perhaps too vague to rise above facetiousness? 🤓
Too many factors to consider, however, if we are speaking about a naturally occurring situation, from my reading it appears that lions are listed as endangered whereas zebras are not. Nevertheless, I am sure there would be certain occasions where the law would impose rights, limits and prohibitions.
No.
There are ofcourse lots of absurd situations one could invent, but on face value NO
As a small boy in primary school, my parents and teacher taught me that Zebra is a wild animal, like wise lion. It is morally unjustified to go and save the Zebra because the reverse might be the case. The story will no longer be Zebra and lion, but lion and human being.
If we approach the problem rationally, I think the answer is clearly that we should not do anything to save the zebra. But ethics also seems to have an emotional component. Probably many of us have seen ourselves in similar situations, and we could ask ourselves what we have done in the same ... Nobody has scared a cat just before jumping on a bird?
You have only told us that the man could save the zebra, what about the man's safety in the first instance or in the long run?
Lion, being what it is, is never a lower animal like rat and snail, to toy with. In this case, the sanctity of the life of this man is most important.
It's a silly question, not an ethics issue. In the abstract, "One law for the lion and the ox is tyranny," quipped William Blake. If the lion had not eaten in a week, and there were herds of zebras within sight (can hardly picture zebras roaming the savannas alone...), then saving the zebra would be immoral. Again, without context, or situation, or motivation on the part of the human (would s/he be observer, participant, local or foreign, hunter or farmer, etc...) the question is moot. The young Ukanga gave the best response!!!
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Moral Philosophy