Abstract

Virtually all political theory and ethical systems presuppose the primacy of human beings. Abstract human beings have rights, privileges, legal standing, and—it is said—claims to our sympathy. Many political debates, therefore, center on questions of where these lines are to be drawn. But many humans do not behave this way. People, for example, may expend far more love, time, money, and energy on their pets’ well-being than on abstract humans. If the choice is between an operation to save their dog’s life, or saving a human life through the United Nations, for example, most will choose the former, even if put in such stark terms. This essay argues that people’s love for their dogs transcends the human/animal barrier, that this love overturns assumptions about the role of abstraction in our lives, and that such attunement can be understood only via new formulations of the roles of ethics and philosophy.