Accidental Blogger

Early last year I wrote a post on pet euthanasia when the memory of a beloved and very loving pet’s death was painfully fresh in my mind. The article was linked to a Newsweek essay by Jonathan Cooperman who had just gone through the wrenching experience of putting his playful Doberman to sleep. I argued that those of us who love our animal companions deeply, relate to them at some level as persons. In doing so, we unashamedly accord them the dignity and worth that we normally reserve for our human family members. While some find the notion bewildering and even preposterous, others like me, find nothing unusual about the sentiment. 

Abbas Raza, fellow pet lover and editor of 3 Quarks Daily, recently went through the ordeal of dealing with the near fatal sickness of his much loved cat, Freddy. He was distraught and disconsolate and was surprised by the depth of his own sorrow. In a heartfelt article, Abbas examines his emotions and his deep attachment to his feline companion. He concludes that Freddy had long ago ceased being a "cat" in his mind and had been transformed into a very interesting and endearing "person" whose company is now an essential source of joy for him.

There are two kinds of people: there are the kooky kind who will spend $4,000 on dialysis for their cat whose kidneys are failing (substitute some significant expenditure of resources for individuals in differing financial circumstances—you know what I mean), even if only to extend its life briefly; and then there are the kind who will make fun of the former (or even regard them with moral disapproval—that money could have been used for better purposes, etcetera). Recent events surprised me by showing that I belong in the first category. And now that I know I belong there, I am going to attempt an explanation or at least hazard a conjecture, a speculation, a plain guess, at what puts some people there.

I have thought a bit about my own reactions which, as I mentioned above, surprised and even embarrassed me. … Here’s what I think: while you can have various degrees of affection for pets, there is a quantum leap that you can make (and this is a Rubicon that cannot be uncrossed): if in your own psychological representation of your pet, you habitually grant them personhood, then there is no choice but to treat them as you would a person because different parts of your mind which specialize in generating the emotions which allow you to interact with (and love) other humans come into play, and these are irresistible impulses. You might as well try to not care about your children. I believe that some animals, like cats and dogs, have through their long histories of living in people’s homes as pets (more than 10,000 years in the case of cats), been naturally selected to encourage human empathy. Imagine what a survival advantage it is to the household cat that its young behave in such ways and make such tiny, vulnerable (to the human ear) sounds that it takes a particularly monstrous human to harm a kitten. Similarly, they have, I think "learned" (even if they do not have the equivalent emotion–after all, just as I don’t know what it is like to be a bat, I don’t know what it is like to be a cat either) to express emotions that move us and encourage us to conceive of them as persons.

Read Abbas’ entire article here.