On May 28, 2016, Harambe, a 17-year-old, 200-kilogram (440 lb) male critically endangered silverback gorilla, was fatally shot by the Cincinnati Zoo officials after a four-year-old boy slipped into the enclosure where Harambe was. Full information.

Yes No see voting resultssaving...
3 opinions, 2 replies
Add your opinion:
Preview:
(mouse over or touch to update)
Add your opinion
0
User voted Yes.
0 votes
Jun 6, 2016

If you do something and you think it's moral then it's moral, because moral is subjective.

What is right for me may be wrong for you, and that's exactly why we have a law, to minimize this problem (and to grant the safety inside a society).

So the right question is: have they respected the law?

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
main reply
0 votes,
Jun 7, 2016

The question whether they respected the law is a non-opinion (and rather boring) question, so it's not for OpiWiki. The current form of the topic is a question whether it was moral or immoral from your perspective. Obviously it's not about judging this situation from the Cincinnati Zoo officials' perspective.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted Yes.
0 votes,
Jun 7, 2016

Well, then in my opinion they had all the right to have shoot Harambe, because it is the same decision that i would have made

subscribe
0
0 votes
Jun 9, 2016

No, no way! It is simply inconceivable, how people can harm and kill animals. Poor gorilla tried to help the boy, and she was killed. Well, if she was trying to cause harm, it is possible to soothe animal, but not to kill!

subscribe
0
User voted Yes.
0 votes
Aug 17, 2016

Hypothetically? Yes. Just like you hypothetically have the moral and legal right to kill a human being that a reasonable person would assume posed an imminent danger, one can do the same to any animal.

But in this specific case, the zoo seemed to have badly botched the situation.

subscribe
Add your opinion
Challenge someone to answer this topic:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
OR
Invite your friend via email:
OR
Share it: