The Owner says that there is a crucial difference between accepting that all are equal, and being obliged to treat all equally. She says equality needs a perspective. It is possible, for example, to argue that all Moral Dogs are of Equal Moral Worth (fluffiness notwithstanding) and yet at the same time to argue that the Individual Owner is free to value one Moral Dog above all others. She quotes Peter Singer, the Australian philosopher who wrote a book called ‘the Expanding Circle,’ in which he argues that the Moral Community evolved this way through prioritising the bonds we feel to those closest to us. He says that as a result we have an expanding circle of relationships whose priority and strength is inversely proportional to their distance from us. She says this is the Moral Code by which we live.
I take this to mean that the Owner values me more greatly than Other Dogs, not because of my secret Universe-saving capacities, but owing to the close proximity that I maintain to her at all times. I resolve never to leave her side.
Later, unaccountably, she locks me out of the bathroom. She says the last time I was in here I put mascara in her eye.
I suggest that this is not relevant to the Moral Code, which surely operates at all times. The Owner surely cannot be suggesting that she is above the Moral Code?
The Owner says one can take the Moral Code too far and I am not taking it into the bathroom.
I am planning to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Moral Code has been prorogued.
Hergest the Hound
I am a dog of many thoughts.