Acharya Prashant addresses the question of an animal's right to life, particularly in scenarios where it conflicts with human well-being. He begins by stating that if a human being threatens your life, you have the right to kill even that human being in self-defense. He questions the utility of conjuring hypothetical and extreme situations, such as a pandemic originating from a bat, to establish a general principle. He asserts that the discussion should focus on general, day-to-day life, not on such fringe cases. The core of his argument is that one should only act against a being—be it a virus, an animal, or a human—if it poses a direct threat. In non-threatening, everyday situations, the pertinent question is whether killing an animal is truly necessary. He emphasizes that in extreme situations, one can kill even human beings, but these are not the norm. The focus should be on our daily choices, where animals are typically not threatening us. When presented with the scenario of killing a non-threatening animal for research to develop a cure for a widespread virus, Acharya Prashant terms this a "last resort" and an "extreme situation" that falls under "Apat-dharma" (duty in times of calamity). He insists that before taking such a step, one must be honestly convinced that all other options have been exhausted. Humans must first exercise their intellect aggressively to find alternatives. Only if it is an utter extreme, where not killing one animal would jeopardize the entire human race, could the act be considered. He contrasts this with the everyday choices related to vegetarianism or veganism, which are not extreme situations. In a true existential crisis, he notes, even a human could be sacrificed for the greater good of humanity.