Let us stipulate, first, that it is not a crime against morality for zoological parks to exist, especially now that zoos tend to reflect our understanding of animal cognition. Wild animals are no doubt happier in the wild; but a zoo may be seen as refuge as well as a place of confinement, especially for imperiled species like gorillas. Let us also stipulate that the parents of the four-year-old boy who penetrated Gorilla World at the Cincinnati Zoo, and fell into the enclosure and the hands of its resident Western lowland silverback Harambe, are not neglectful parents. The fiendish ability of small children to escape parental supervision is familiar to any parent of a small child.
I raise these two points because news of the zoo’s shooting and killing of Harambe this past weekend has devolved, to some degree, into public discussion of these two ancillary topics. The zoo is not to blame for the presence of Harambe, and the parents aren’t to blame for their child’s misbehavior. But was it really necessary to shoot and kill the gorilla? Administrators claim that Harambe, clutching the child and occasionally dragging him around a moat, was not just endangering the life of the child but injuring him as well. Perhaps. But video of the incident suggests that the child’s injuries were more likely sustained when he fell into the moat rather than anything done by Harambe.
