Beyond the Emotional realms of Canine conundrum
Pet
owners bristle when their furry companions are simply called ‘dogs’. The mere
utterance of the word seemed to strip away the enchantment Pooja had woven
around Coco when I casually called her dog ‘a dog’.
Coco (image shared by Pooja) |
However, here is how easily I can separate the concept of symbolic power (the pebble) from the idea of a literal god (the divinity): as an agnostic with a leaning towards atheism, I possess a surprising depth of knowledge about religious texts. Despite this, I engage in daily rituals with genuine devotion. In doing so, I recognize the virtues symbolized by the deities as my personal aspirations. Simultaneously, I understand that these rituals are not pleas for divine intervention.
Similarly, pet owners need to separate their feelings from the facts. Feelings and facts are two sides of the same coin, yet they often clash. Our emotions can color our perception of the world, making it difficult to separate objective truth from subjective experience. While feelings are valuable for navigating relationships and decision-making, relying solely on them can lead to biases.
Is it offensive to call a dog, ‘a dog’? It is simply a statement of biological truth. It's no more offensive than calling a cat, a cat, or, a tree, a tree. Here's the twist: perhaps it's the implication of ‘just a dog’ that rankles. Pet owners often see their furry friends as individuals with unique personalities, quirks, and a capacity for love that rivals, or even surpasses some humans. In that sense, calling them ‘a dog’ feels dismissive, ignoring the richness of their being.
However,
in our odyssey to connect with our pets, do we blur the line between recognition
and romanticization? The fact is that they are Canis lupus
familiaris—descendants of wolves domesticated over millennia. Their wagging
tails, floppy ears, and soulful eyes are the result of selective breeding. They
bark, fetch, and chase their tails—undeniably dog-like behaviors. We
romantically name them Max, Bella, Luna, or Coco as in Pooja’s case, infusing
their existence with poetry. They become our confidantes, protectors, and
cuddle buddies. Their unwavering loyalty transcends mere biology. Yet, acknowledging
that our emotions are but only a reaction to a fact, allows for informed
choices and stronger connections with the world around us.
Here's
another thought experiment: Is naming a dog and calling it ‘basically human’
any more accurate? While it might seem like a compliment, I feel that the dog should
rather take it as an insult given that, humans, despite their capacity for love
and loyalty, unlike dogs, can be riddled with selfishness, greed, and a
destructive streak. Perhaps the four-legged companions, with their unwavering
devotion and unconditional love, deserve a separate category altogether.
Not that I regard Article 51 A (g) i.e., to have compassion for living creatures, any lesser. But where scientific temperament is called for to be cultivated and the spirit of inquiry is asked for to be developed as a Fundamental Duty under Article 51 A (h), we can’t ignore to acknowledge the biological reality while appreciating the emotional connection. In a scientific world where facts are revered, we need to recognize the delicate dance between facts and feelings. Celebrate the unique bond between humans and animals while recognizing that dogs are, well, dogs – magnificent creatures deserving of respect in their own right. Perhaps we can even learn a thing or two from their unwavering loyalty and capacity for joy in the simplest things. After all, isn't that what truly makes life worth living?
Kindly visit Dog's Dignity Beyond the Label to get the essence of this article in a poetic version.
Comments
Post a Comment