Thoughts On The Recent Shark Attack
I want to use the following quote in two ways:
George Bernard Shaw said,
“When a man wants to murder a tiger, it’s called a sport;
when a tiger wants to murder him, it’s called ferocity.”
#1):
This is an interesting quote; however, it seems that Shaw is equating the tiger’s actions with the “sportsman’s” on a moral level. Murder is the unjust taking of another’s life, which the hunter most assuredly does when he kills the tiger, but the tigers’ taking of the hunter’s life is different in kind.
Consider a hypothetical: if a five year old human infant were to get his hand on a gun, point it at you and fire, would you say that the child was acting immorally? I would say that the child is not acting immorally because the child is incapable of acting morally or immorally: from Kant, having the capacity to bring impartial reason to bear on one’s actions is the necessary characteristic to qualify as a moral agent (i.e., to be able to act morally or immorally).
Applying this to the situation of the tiger killing the pseudo-sportsman (a.k.a., murderer for sport), it would seem that the term “murder” is incorrectly applied. As with the child, the tiger is not reasonably considered a moral agent, therefore, as in the case of the child shooting you, the tiger can’t be said to have unjustly taken a life. Both the tiger and the human infant are moral patients.
And #2):
The news coverage on the recent shark attack in California allows us to consider the substance of Shaw’s remarks.
A situation is posited where an individual is gleefully enjoying all the ocean has to offer while a “real-life Jaws” awaits his opportunity to strike, unprovoked, with viciousness and rage. Indeed, “unprovoked” is the most commonly used term to describe this attack. Deconstructing this, however, reveals the absurdity of this description.
The ocean is the shark’s natural environment - his home and refuge. The shark is a natural carnivore, and this environment is his supermarket: due to necessity, the shark must consume meat to survive; therefore, when he is hungry he hunts for prey. If I enter his environment I necessarily assume the risks of doing so; I am in fact, provoking a possible attack by entertaining myself in the shark’s home. If I was attacked while having a swim in a river I knew to be populated with a school of piranha, it’s hardly reasonably for me to argue that my attack was “unprovoked”: piranhas are carnivorous, so it is in their nature - it’s what they do to survive - to eat meat, as I am meat, I assume the risk of being attacked.
Calling an attack “unprovoked” shifts the focus (and blame) from the individual participant onto the animal, which is illogical and unfair. Indeed, while most argue that the shark has left the area, others are actively pursuing him so as to murder him. I say that the hunt for this shark constitutes the unprovoked attack: we freely decide to enter the shark’s domain, he responds in a way natural to him, and we murder him for doing so. It’s as if there exists some pre-determined standard for acting between non-human animals and human animals that is only broken when a surfer, for example, approaches a shark and punches him in the face. As the child ought to not be placed in prison for shooting you - she isn’t playing by the same moral rules - the shark ought to not be punished for behaving naturally.
The death of the individual is tragic, but we mustn’t deflect blame from that individual, and all others who freely participate in these activities, onto a morally blameless animal.
It is our species that creates these situations of conflict, and yet as a species, we are incapable of accepting our responsibility for doing so. We develop land heavily populated by raccoons, for example, and then argue that we must, as a matter of necessity, murder those raccoons that happen to find themselves on our property because they are “pests” or a nuisance. This is the height of infantile reasoning, and Speciesism.
“The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality.”
- Schopenhauer (The Basis of Moral Duty)
Crossposted at That Vegan Girl
“Calling an attack “unprovoked” shifts the focus (and blame) from the individual participant onto the animal, which is illogical and unfair.” Totally agree. But isn’t that what is done with language? Humans put animals “to sleep” - “cull” or “harvest” - “confine” not cage…. It stands to reason that a being like a shark, in his own environment would be accused of an “unprovoked attack”. Thanks for this reminder of yet another instance of double speak meant to justify our very innacurate moral compass….
Very well stated, Bea
Alex’s last blog post..A misunderstanding…
I agree with you both completely. When we put ourselves into their domain we are taking a risk. In the case where the Florida diver was attacked and killed he was swimming in the water as it was being chummed so without a doubt smelling like a fish because he would have been covered in fish blood.
I think it’s really sad how people are so scared of sharks when there are so many other more dangerous activities than swimming in the sea. Driving, for example, is far more dangerous.
And of course, sharks are not morally culpable.