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.