Monday, February 15, 2016
Grizzly Man Diaries
In class we discussed how we treat animals based on our sense of ethics and justice.
When Timothy Treadwell died at the hands of a grizzly, a group of men armed with guns went out after the bear that killed him and his girlfriend, and dealt the bear some swift buckshot justice.
Let's imagine a scenario where this is a person, and not a bear. In this scenario, let's say that there is a person that has taken to squatting in a house. This person does not own the house, but this person has grown to become territorial over it. One day, this squatter finds some punk in his squatter spot. In split second moment of rage, the squatter attacks this punk, and ends up killing him unintentionally. Unfortunately for the squatter, this punk has connections, and it doesn't take long for the law to start running him down.
Unlike the bear, the squatter has a shot at being taken alive, while the bear was always doomed to die before given a chance at a trial. I believe that part of this has to do with the fact that those that went after the bear believed that a bear is only capable of reacting, with no ability to respond to situations. The squatter on the other hand, has the ability to make a reasonable response to the situation, but doesn't in favor of making a knee jerk reaction of finding someone invading his space. The ability to respond implies an ability to know right from wrong, so if a bear is perceived as being incapable of responding that makes them inherently dangerous. The squatter on the other hand, while having been proven dangerous in once instance, is not inherently dangerous, and is more likely to safely be taken alive.
The question to be raised here is if it's really fair that a human will usually receive better treatment than a bear or any other dangerous animal. Is it possible to capture a bear alive, and if so, does it make sense to do so? Should humans make every attempt to ensure that bear receives the same sort of justice that a human might?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Very interesting scenario. I agree that in the squatter's case, he most-likely will be taken alive. However, I do not think that the reason that the squatter would be taken alive is necessarily because the potential vigilantes consciously acknowledge that the squatter can respond (as opposed to a bear that can mainly only react). I think that the squatter is given a chance quite simply because the friends of the slain person will automatically put a human's life above a bear's.
ReplyDeleteI believe that it was wrong of the bear that killed Treadwell to be slain for its actions because the bear only reacted the way it did because of its natural instincts. Treadwell should not have been where he was when the bear killed him. Additionally, the bear should not have been captured (dead or alive), because the bear did not pose a threat to any other human because it was in its natural habitat where no other humans were. Bears, in my opinion, should not be dealt any kind of justice or injustice. They should be left alone, even in a case such as this one.
I agree the life of a human, no matter how much of a punk, will usually be valued more than the life of an animal. As such we do not see it fit to ascribe rights to a bear either so they do not get the benefit the justice system would bestow on a human. I'm not arguing that we should extended all our rights to this bear and allow him to testify, though I would look at the Land Ethic by Aldo Leopold if you get the chance, but perhaps some rights should be given. In the end though I agree with Nicole that bear should simply be left alone because it does deserve that right.
Delete