|
 Peg's
Polemic
Every
month, philosopher Peg Tittle casts off the calm, measured and qualified
style of her profession to deliver her opinionated and impassioned
column, exclusively for the TPM philosophy café...
Number
14. Death
for Willy?
I
was sort of attacked by a dog a few weeks ago when I was out running.
It wasn't really a severe attack: I was simply taken down, like
a deer, in a well-executed stealth manoeuvre by a large German Shepherd;
he did not, nor did his companion, come in for the kill, or even
the maul - I was left with a single but deep and ragged bite requiring
half a dozen stitches.
It
wasn't provoked - well, perhaps it was - in the way a red miniskirt
provokes an assault: I was running, which in itself is provocative
to most canines for at least pursuit; and I was running past (but
not on) his property, so I was, given the canine propensity to extend
legal boundaries by a few miles, 'in his face'.
Thing
is, almost everyone I've spoken to encourages me to report it to
the police so the dog can be 'put down'. Now, true enough, my thick
thigh survived the bite and I'm not now traumatized for life regarding
all furry brown and black things - a child would not have fared
so well. I understand that.
But
dogs can make mistakes, and I don't think we should necessarily
be killed for our mistakes. Again, true enough, this doesn't sound
like a mistake - but I decided to meet Willy (!) and Axel before
taking any further action. I did so and concluded that Willy is
not a psychopathic killer or even a beaten and abused dog with an
understandable but incurable 'attitude': I had both he and Axel
eating out of my hand - those little doggie treats shaped like letter
carriers; Axel even licked my face (Willy gave me a look that seemed
to discourage that sort of invitation - though he could have just
been remembering at the moment that cellulite tastes rather yucky);
and both dogs were quite obedient to their owners' commands to lay
down in their corner. Rather, I concluded that Willy is 'simply'
a big, rough, strong dog who has not been taught that Biting is
Unequivocally Unacceptable (Bad).
Where
am I going with all of this? Here: we routinely let people live
who have done far far worse than Willy - why? Are we just inconsistent
or is our distinction between human and not-human/dog justified?
Frankly, I don't see the justification. I think there's as much
likelihood that Willy can be rehabilitated as there is that the
aforementioned people can be - perhaps even more, given the (relative)
simply clarity of Willy's mind. (On the flip side, the human's greater
potential to control natural tendencies with reason make such assaults
less excusable and therefore more punishable than Willy's assault.)
Rehab
aside, is Willy more likely to repeat the attack? I don't think
so - it was a fluke of timing and circumstance (I happened to run
by his property just at the moment he was let out of his kennel
and then left unsupervised for a few minutes - first time in five
years). Furthermore, fencing the entire property (the solution I
advocated to the owner) would reduce the likelihood of repeat attacks.
Unlike Willy, most of the aforementioned people know how to open
a gate.
Lastly,
Willy has an owner - of whom I can request a remedy short of death.
Alas, the aforementioned people don't have owners.
Am
I wary when I pass by now? Of course. But I'm still more afraid
of the camouflage-clad hunters with their beer and rifles, and the
half-wandering drivers with their cell phones.
Peg's
Polemic will next be updated mid-February 2002
Previous
polemics
13.
12.
11.
10.
9.
8.
7.
6.
5.
4.
3.
2.
1.
|
