Should I save the rabbit or the falcon?

[Obscurata]

I was very sick recently and had to stare out my apartment window for many hours.

Sometimes I saw a falcon soaring overhead. It was majestic. Sometimes I saw my neighbour play with her pet rabbits on the common lawns downstairs. They were very cute.

What should I have done if I saw both the falcon flying and the rabbits playing at the same time? Should I have yelled out my window to my neighbour to tell her to hide the rabbits? That would save their lives, but possibly kill the falcon and its family which must eat each day. Or should I have done nothing and let the falcon have its meal?

I decided to go with my gut and save the rabbits, but I never came up with a Buddhism-centred rationale for doing so. What would you have done in this situation?

[Bristollad]

I would have probably done the same as you. But as you pointed out, this denies the falcon food so there will be suffering either way. And that’s the point, within Samsara there will always be suffering one way or another. It’s the first noble truth.

So the Buddhist response imo is not to try and adjudicate between all the various sufferings but to try to achieve liberation from suffering for everyone. We do that by following the Buddha’s wise instructions. In the meantime we mitigate what harm we can, when we can.

[PadmaVonSamba]

The falcon can find wild rabbits and other small animals to eat.

[ThreeVows]

I'm guessing it's a Peregrine falcon, which tend to be prevalent in certain cities. They mostly eat birds anyway. They knock them in flight by diving at them.

[seeker242]

Don’t see why one would need a “Buddhist rationale” for it. A persons pet rabbit is not supposed to be eagle food to begin with. No different from helping a human escape being killed by a hungry wild animal. No one would just be standing there, staring at some guy being chased by a tiger, when you could help the guy but you don’t because the tiger was hungry. That would just be ridiculous. Shouldn’t be any different just because it’s a pet rabbit.

[PadmaVonSamba]

The hypothetical question, leaving out the story details is would you favor a rabbit at the cost to the predator or the falcon at the cost to the rabbit.

The answer above, about samsara simply having unavoidable suffering, is true.

But if should be noted that by most Buddhist thinking, there are no one-answer-fits-all solutions. Most of the time it’s probably better to help the rabbit, but sometimes maybe not.

The human realm on earth probably wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for the need to evolve to escape predators. If you practice Dharma, thank a saber-toothed Tiger.

[Obscurata]

Thanks for all the views, I think its a it of a brain teaser. I'm persuaded by Bristollad's view. In samsara, there is suffering all around and scarce room to breathe.

[DharmaJunior]

This is an interesting wild vs domestic issue, and also a law of the land vs law of the sky issue. When wild meets domestic it isn't necessarily reciprocal (quid pro quo). A vast majority of avian species are 'wild' but owe their existence to people, their generosity and often wastefulness. Pigeons can be considered vermin but it isn't their fault that we enable them to thrive. Domestic cats play by our rules, still have their instincts intact, and never have an existential crisis (a paradise of eating, sleeping, playing). When I say 'play', you know, they're non binary yes and no, so Schrodinger was on to something. In other words, cats have both worlds, if such a duality has any conceptual merit.

Bird history goes way back, to say the least. Falcons, in particular, aren't going to play by our rules, nor will they be patronized, so no 'flipping the bird' where air superiority is concerned. You could look at it like a woodsman vs urban vagabond. A human being can go wild like the Falcon, but find it extremely difficult to reintegrate. (Think homeless veteran). One becomes like the other and never the twain shall meet.

That said, for domestic life, there is an expectation of security. Clearly our pets don't explicitly form a contract, and unknowingly abide by our terms. So, you know, that's only my opinion that it's a duty of care, and an oath to defend the social contract and not to throw family members and fur babies to the elements.

[tingdzin]

A lot of interesting rationales. Here's another factor. There are countless rabbits, but falcons are dying out.

[Inedible]

I decided to go with my gut and save the rabbits

You were sick and in bed. Suppose the falcon went for the rabbits. And further imagine that the neighbor tried to get in the way and was hurt by the falcon, too. What are your options? I don't see how you had the decision to make.

[Miorita]

I decided to go with my gut and save the rabbits

You were sick and in bed. Suppose the falcon went for the rabbits. And further imagine that the neighbor tried to get in the way and was hurt by the falcon, too. What are your options? I don't see how you had the decision to make.

But it's the efficient decision in terms of having to optimize the amount of work he'll have to do to burn the animal's karma.
The rabbit being a mammal, is more evolved than the falcon being a bird. The rabbit requires less work.
As for the falcon, Obscurata may want to slice the process and make it possible over the animal's next incarnations.
He could just let it follow it's karma of a predator and it'll be liberated now if Obscurata so wants.
As for the owner, well who cares? We talk about samsara, not about people owning stuff to cook whole in their pots.

[Inedible]

I read that reply three times and it still doesn't make sense to me. I think you are assuming common ground we don't have.

[Vajrasvapna]

I was very sick recently and had to stare out my apartment window for many hours.

Sometimes I saw a falcon soaring overhead. It was majestic. Sometimes I saw my neighbour play with her pet rabbits on the common lawns downstairs. They were very cute.

What should I have done if I saw both the falcon flying and the rabbits playing at the same time? Should I have yelled out my window to my neighbour to tell her to hide the rabbits? That would save their lives, but possibly kill the falcon and its family which must eat each day. Or should I have done nothing and let the falcon have its meal?

I decided to go with my gut and save the rabbits, but I never came up with a Buddhism-centred rationale for doing so. What would you have done in this situation?

Try to save yourself by cutting self-clinging, attachment to negative emotions and attachment to hopes and fears.

[Giovanni]

I was very sick recently and had to stare out my apartment window for many hours.

Sometimes I saw a falcon soaring overhead. It was majestic. Sometimes I saw my neighbour play with her pet rabbits on the common lawns downstairs. They were very cute.

What should I have done if I saw both the falcon flying and the rabbits playing at the same time? Should I have yelled out my window to my neighbour to tell her to hide the rabbits? That would save their lives, but possibly kill the falcon and its family which must eat each day. Or should I have done nothing and let the falcon have its meal?

I decided to go with my gut and save the rabbits, but I never came up with a Buddhism-centred rationale for doing so. What would you have done in this situation?

This is prapanca in action. It’s an imaginary scenario and your mind has proliferated a number of different scenarios. In reality if it actually happened the variables would be too many to base a course of action on.

[PadmaVonSamba]

Rabbits exist as they do today, with their ability to outrun a predator, because of the falcons of the past (and foxes, etc). Falcons exist today, with their ability to catch quickly moving rabbits, because of the challenges posed by rabbits of the past.
That’s ‘natural selection’.
It’s also ‘dependent origination’.

If you interfere and save a slow moving rabbit today, you may become the cause for more slow moving rabbits able to be born and thus caught by falcons in the future.

[Norwegian]

No one would just be standing there, staring at some guy being chased by a tiger, when you could help the guy but you don’t because the tiger was hungry. That would just be ridiculous.

I hate to inform you, but that's a wild assumption. As one of innumerable examples, there was a murder attempt in Toronto recently. Onboard a train or a long shuttle bus or whatever it was.

And there is a video of this. In short, you see it filmed from the point of view of someone sitting down. A guy is running full speed past everybody, and right behind him another man, holding a knife. And the first guy is desperately screaming again and again for help, begging someone to help him. Then suddenly a lady loudly says "he's stabbing him, he's stabbing him", and everybody gets up, and walks the other way, while the guy is being attempted murdered, by being stabbed multiple times.

I haven't read up on the story after this, but what I saw was that he survived the attack but was in critical condition in hospital. And that was one man with a knife. You expect people to help a man being chased by a tiger somehow? In large crowd situations, the vast majority of people become exceptionally selfish, only thinking about saving themselves. This is related to the bystander effect.

[Tao]

It's taoist but applies the same I think:

There were three monks in the garden with the master and one of them said:

Dear master is ti right to say that we shouldnt kill even insects?

Yes, you're right said the master

But dear master, the bugs are eating all our plants so it should be right to kill them to avoid us dying without food!

Oh yes, yes, you're right dear monk said the master

The third one jumped!

But master!!! you said two contradictory things in one minute, that cannot be!!!!

UHm, yes, yes you're right too, my friend.

End of story

So now you have a clear answer. And yes, you did right.

[seeker242]

No one would just be standing there, staring at some guy being chased by a tiger, when you could help the guy but you don’t because the tiger was hungry. That would just be ridiculous.

I hate to inform you, but that's a wild assumption. As one of innumerable examples, there was a murder attempt in Toronto recently. Onboard a train or a long shuttle bus or whatever it was.

And there is a video of this. In short, you see it filmed from the point of view of someone sitting down. A guy is running full speed past everybody, and right behind him another man, holding a knife. And the first guy is desperately screaming again and again for help, begging someone to help him. Then suddenly a lady loudly says "he's stabbing him, he's stabbing him", and everybody gets up, and walks the other way, while the guy is being attempted murdered, by being stabbed multiple times.

I haven't read up on the story after this, but what I saw was that he survived the attack but was in critical condition in hospital. And that was one man with a knife. You expect people to help a man being chased by a tiger somehow? In large crowd situations, the vast majority of people become exceptionally selfish, only thinking about saving themselves. This is related to the bystander effect.

And the example actually being discussed here is a pet rabbit and a bird. It's blatantly obvious that it's appropriate to help the rabbit. Just like it would be appropriate to help a person. Whether or not people help in such situations, because of bystander effect, etc. is not relevant to the point that was being made. It completely misses the point really.

[Malcolm]

And the example actually being discussed here is a pet rabbit and a bird. It's blatantly obvious that it's appropriate to help the rabbit. Just like it would be appropriate to help a person. Whether or not people help in such situations, because of bystander effect, etc. is not relevant to the point that was being made. It completely misses the point really.

Definitely pick the falcon. Rabbits are a dime a dozen. Falcons are more important over all to the ecosystem.

[seeker242]

And the example actually being discussed here is a pet rabbit and a bird. It's blatantly obvious that it's appropriate to help the rabbit. Just like it would be appropriate to help a person. Whether or not people help in such situations, because of bystander effect, etc. is not relevant to the point that was being made. It completely misses the point really.

Definitely pick the falcon. Rabbits are a dime a dozen. Falcons are more important over all to the ecosystem.

Definitely pick the pet of the little girl next door. Or, you can go tell he that her pet is dead "Because falcons have to eat too you know". Sounds like something a psychopath would say.