But wait a minute! How can, in the circumstances described, anybody—even the most compassionate and loving brother—know with true certainty what Floyd would have wanted? A panda, no matter how seemingly intelligent, cannot tell us and cannot think, even in the best of circumstances, at least not as humans do. So we feel authorized, even obliged, to make life-and-death decisions for it (especially after we have already decided, presumably without its informed consent, to remove it from its native habitat and hold it in lifelong confinement for the amusement and maudlin sentimentality of us humans). But Floyd was not a panda, and that, precisely, is the difference. Only with the greatest hubris could any of us presume to know with moral certainty what he would have wished—except, perhaps, that he wanted physical comfort and tangible signs of loving care, both of which, in fact, he received in abundant—nay, superabundant—measure. By what (mis)interpretation of love or dignity would we want to deprive him of that?