What is the meaning of life? When this question is asked, it is usually in a philosophical manner. However, the lack of a grounded definition to this question may be the root of some of our world’s greatest problems. If we cannot even identify the definition of the term life, then how can we begin debates about such topics? Once we have defined the term, we must then go a step further and analyze its importance in society.
Before I go on a rant about how stupid it is to value the life of a gorilla over that of a four-year-old boy, I will define the very premise of this notion. Life is any form of creation that can bring glory to the Lord. It may be in the form of humans, it may be in the form of the magnificent nature that surrounds us, and it may be in the form of an animal. Life was created by God for the purpose of bringing glory to Him.
So, if life is such, and it includes both humans and animals, and even includes a random species of ficus, then why should there be a debate about the importance of a gorilla versus a human? Well, this debate resumes due to the fact that while all life was created essentially for the same purpose, there are some forms of life that we hold more valuable than others — such life being humans.
Why? This is because ultimately the only ones who worship the Lord and have the ability to actively choose to follow or not follow the Lord are humans. Likewise to when a ficus dies, gorillas are not destined for heaven or hell. Humans are the only form of life who, when they die, either go to heaven or hell. The very fact that humans are the only ones who can choose to accept or deny to live a life glorifying to Christ allows for a greater value and importance to be placed on that of humans.
Now that I have explained life and analyzed its role in society, I will go on my rant about the stupidity surrounding this gorilla debate. First off, we are not talking about some random species of something that happens to be alive. We are talking about a living, breathing, human being who happens to be a small child. How can we live in a world where people get upset that a small innocent child was saved? Is this really our priority — to fight for the life of a zoo animal over that of someone who could one day be the president? Even if they don’t become president — they could be your garbage man, your teacher, your firefighter — whatever they may be, they are a human who plays a role in our society.
If it was your own child, or your little brother, or even a stranger, would not their life matter more than an ape? Come on America! If the gorilla was tranquilized instead of killed, it may not have set in until too late — in the meantime agitating the beast and allowing it to kill the child.
For you animal activists who still are not enthused by this argument — that the boy’s survival depended on the immediate destabilization of the gorilla — then picture me this. Picture the gorilla being tranquilized and becoming angry. Would you rather witness a small child being slaughtered by a gorilla, just so that the gorilla could survive a few more years in a cage? (If your answer is yes, then you have a lot of reevaluation to do in your life.)
We could debate what to do out of such a tragedy. We could call for the zoo to raise their fences, or for all animals to be sent back to the wild. But, ultimately, the moral of the reaction of this story should be the following: America needs to get its priorities straight. People are more valuable than animals, and should be treated like such. End of story. So, stop complaining about this gorilla thing, weigh your priorities, and stand up for what is important — the dignity of human life.