When I look at my American-bulldog/boxer, Sheena, as I am at this very moment; I do indeed see more than a dog; a mutt; an object. She has been a loyal and true friend to me -- often when no friends of my own species were to be found. I would even go so far as to nominally award her the title of "family member." She is a good girl. I cannot, however, connect "personhood" with her. Personhood is not relative across species. It is reserved for human beings. Humans are possessors of the human essence; that is to say, we possess "humanness," or defining characteristics of the animal of which we are.
Conversely; canines, i.e. dogs have an essence, or "dogness" entirely of their own. This "dogness" is something unique to their species, as personhood is to ours. Suppose one day you, or I, or anyone else decided to tear our clothes off; get down on all fours, and never again utter a word recognizable to the human ear. Suppose having done this, we decide to hang out only with other dogs; howling; barking; whining in a high pitch, and these would be our only means of communication. Would this make either of us dogs? There is no judge; in any appellate who would bring down her gavel and declare: "This man is a dog! Court is adjourned."
No rational judge would rule in favor rule in favor of granting "dogness" to a human; whatever that would en-tail. This is not to say that within our exceedingly weird times that it would be shocking, or even... too far-fetched, to imagine some nut from Florida, or California, attempting to convince the court of his new found "dogness." Take about thirty seconds to picture what that scene would look like; Some weird naked guy in front of the bench panting; drooling all over his lawyer's shiny oxfords. I would even go out on a limb to guess that there would be people who would take the guy seriously, society being how it is, and all. All kidding aside, a dog can no more be a person, than a person can be a dog.
I also wonder why some humans are prepared to offer such latitude as "personhood" to all dogs, but don't lift a finger to help themselves, or others who are already supposed to possess this so-called status. It seems far more logical to figure out what a person's rights actually are; than to waste more time and resources on new legislation which may feel great for emotion's sake, but pragmatically accomplishes very little. Changing the way we label something; while being utterly unable to change the essence of the thing, is a complete waste of time. Not only that, but it's also pretty insulting when we live in a society that considers itself to have such robust freedom of thought; only to be commanded to think along the lines of someone else's dictates (especially when the decrees are fallacies in themselves). I'll spare you from making metaphors that go further than trying to talk into a banana, and trying to eat the phone; though my argument is as simply premised, and inferred as such.
My purpose is not to assert that [Dr.] Berns' study is a sham. I'm certain that of Callie, and eleven other dogs-- when placed in an MRI machine, their caudates lit right up like christmas trees in response to certain physical cues. To me this in itself is remarkable; considering that I can barely persuade my dog to stay in the bathtub. While I'm sure his findings were exciting to see, I think what Berns considers to be "evidence" is quite sketchy at best. I also think that his so-called "inescapable conclusion" that "dogs are people too;" is merely an appeal to emotion, and also an appeal to popularity; as there are many folks out there who love their pets more than they could ever love another human being. For Berns' conclusion to be categorically true of all dogs; the paradox of Hempel's Raven must be considered; i.e. all ravens are black, and all non-black things are non-ravens. To prove the validity of his claim, it would require the study of quite a few more dogs than twelve; over the course of quite a few more months than twenty four. Such a task would actually require the use of a magical genie, and the study of all dogs; everywhere in the universe.
And so, if there is anything that this article proves, it is that [Dr.] Berns loves dogs. He loves dogs so much; he seeks to find evidence to assign a new definition to the species with regard to how we all view, think, and speak of dogs. If his research really proved what he had intended; it would be front page news everywhere on planet Earth. It would not have been buried in the opinion section of the New York Times. Alas, dogs are dogs; people are people, but what really brings both species together-- is the birthright of not being treated as mere objects by anyone, anywhere, ever.
Link to the original article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/opinion/sunday/dogs-are-people-too.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&
Readers' responses: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/14/opinion/is-fido-a-person-under-the-fur.html
No comments:
Post a Comment