In Gorilla's Death, Critics Blame Mother, Cincinnati Zoo

[Orrex]

64. But consider:

Nobody can speak for the form of life in a cage that doesn't speak our language.

Let us first be clear that we're discussing a non-human animal that does not have the same legal rights as a human being, lest someone try to conflate "non-English-speaking-gorilla" with "non-English-speaking-human."

In this case, the option ended up being dead while in a cage.

That's true, but it's not central.

The zoo created an environment that the gorilla would think as natural, but it wasn't the actual natural environment of a gorilla.

Also true, and also not central.

Then when it did something defined as wrong, against the rules that it had no say in, it was taken out.

Also true, but not greatly significant here. If I do something wrong against federal laws in which I've had no say, I will be punished in accordance with those laws. Also, if I present an immediate and credible threat of lethal harm to a child, I can certainly expect to be taken out, even if I've had no say in any laws to that effect.

They gorilla's keepers acted to protect the human child because, according to their experienced and professional judgment, no other equally viable and equally effective option was available. The fact that this took place in a zoo is unfortunate, but it doesn't change the fact that the keepers had to act quickly and decisively and without the benefit of several days' hindsight nor DU's incomparable wisdom on matters of inter-species ethics.

If I'd threatened the gorilla's offspring in the wild, there's a good chance that the gorilla would have ripped me into Rhesus pieces. Similarly, if a gorilla in the wild were threatening a human child, the gorilla would have been shot in that case as well.