Welcome to the 500th Ethics and Religion Talk column. Every once in a while, I like to present a question that breaks the boundaries and challenges our ethical norms, to keep things interesting. The following question is in response to the tragic death of a tiger in Florida at the end of December, 2021. A member of a cleaning crew, who was not authorized to be in the spaces near the animal enclosures, put his arm into the tiger enclosure, apparently either to pet or to feed the tiger. The tiger grabbed his harm. A sheriff’s deputy, responding to the scene, was unable to get the tiger to release the man and therefore shot the tiger to save the man’s life.
To be clear this question is not about the officer who shot the tiger. He responded to a person in distress and I’m going to assume that the only way he could do his job and save that person was to shoot the tiger.
But I have a theoretical question that assumes a different set of circumstances: If you were a zookeeper with access to weapons, and you knew that the tiger had grabbed the man’s arm because he stuck it into the tiger’s enclosure (and in addition he was a person who had no business being in that part of the zoo), rather than calling 911 would you:
a) shoot the tiger to try to save the man’s arm and life, or
b) further endanger the man’s life and let him suffer longer by using a tranquilizer gun in order to save the life of an endangered species of tiger? Note that tranquilizers take time to work and sometimes fail to pierce the hide of the animal on the first shot.
My ethical system would argue that human life more important than animal life. It is a mitzvah to save a human life, even at the expense of an endangered animal.
However, I find it difficult to answer this question without noting that this particular “Florida Man” behaved foolishly, to say the least. I could imagine him saying to his cleaning buddy, ‘Hey, hold my beer and watch this!’, and we all know what disaster typically follows those words. What happened to him is his own fault. He misused his free will and intentionally placed his life in danger. Part of me would prefer to argue that he should suffer the consequences for this, no matter what they are. Part of me would have preferred that this man had gone the extra mile by qualifying himself for nomination for a Darwin award for contributing to the improvement of human evolution by taking his genome entirely out of the gene pool.
Note again that I am not seriously arguing that the life of a human being, not matter how stupid or careless, should be sacrificed to preserve the life of an animal. But I wonder if there are ethical systems out that that would make that argument. So I gave this question to the Ethics and Religion Talk panel for response to the question, ’How would your tradition respond?’
Fred Stella, the Pracharak (Outreach Minister) for the West Michigan Hindu Temple, responds:
You forgot: c) Shoot the man and put him out of his misery. From what is said here, he clearly has more problems going on that just the tiger.
OK. Maybe not C. The fleeting thought did occur, though better angels prevailed.
Seriously, I would gather that I have lost more coreligionists to tigers (no one I’ve known) than anyone else on this panel, so we have dealt with this for centuries. Certainly, Hindu Dharma offers a more egalitarian view of coexistence with other life forms than some other religions. In the 5th chapter of the Bhagavad Gita we read, “To him who wisely sees the Brahmin with his scrolls and sanctities, the cow, the elephant, the unclean dog, the outcast gorging dog's meat, are all one. The world is overcome- aye--even here, by such as fix their faith on Unity.”
Obviously, one could take this in the incorrect context, thinking that the life of the tiger is equal to that of the man. But there is an overarching understanding that the life of a human, due to our inborn ability to perceive divinity, is more important than that of a tiger. Of course, in ancient India there was no concern about any endangered status for animals.
The Reverend Colleen Squires, minister at All Souls Community Church of West Michigan, a Unitarian Universalist Congregation, responds:
Unitarian Universalism is not a vengeful religion, we would not punish a small minded person for doing something foolish but we would hold them accountable for their actions.
Often when one person chooses to do something foolish they also harm others in some way. Here the tiger is killed. Extreme or novice hikers cause rescue teams to search for them, unvaccinated people overwhelm the hospital system, arsonists risk firefighters lives and cause mass destruction.
We are starting to see severe fines being levied for foolish or malicious behavior. This is holding the person accountable for their actions plus it hopefully discourages others from doing the same.
This column answers questions of Ethics and Religion by submitting them to a multi-faith panel of spiritual leaders in the Grand Rapids area. We’d love to hear about the ordinary ethical questions that come up in the course of your day as well as any questions of religion that you’ve wondered about. Tell us how you resolved an ethical dilemma and see how members of the Ethics and Religion Talk panel would have handled the same situation. Please send your questions to [email protected].
The Rapidian, a program of the 501(c)3 nonprofit Community Media Center, relies on the community’s support to help cover the cost of training reporters and publishing content.
We need your help.
If each of our readers and content creators who values this community platform help support its creation and maintenance, The Rapidian can continue to educate and facilitate a conversation around issues for years to come.
Please support The Rapidian and make a contribution today.
