I have decided to start a weekly series involving certain situations that involve philosophical, moral, or logical dilemmas, riddles, or puzzles pertaining to many facets of life that many of us have either brushed by the wayside in our never ending search for the truth or simply ignored altogether. These situations or parables or stories (whatever they turn out to be) are meant to get you thinking about what it is you truly believe and why. Do you think Nazis should be pardoned for their war crimes? Are there war crimes? Who’s responsible when those acting are conscripted into service? Each of these questions asks about each other, showing that while one may be answerable by itself, when other connections are made, beliefs can get fuzzy and even the most solid of bedrock foundations may give a little.
That is the goal of the Analog Dilemma series. It is so named for a variety of reasons: 1) it is an anagram of “diagonal lemma” which is near and dear to my heart as it establishes the existence of self-referential sentences, the heart of Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem. 2) these will all be dilemmas in the sense that there will be at least two mutually exclusive “correct” answers. 3) and the point of “analog”? Well even that has a few reasons: a) you find something better using “agonal” (and “go anal!” doesn’t count). b) analog means a variable that is continuous in time and amplitude for an engineer. As these problems are not just merely what’s wrong with the world “today” but rather, stretches back and forth through time in, I found it appropriate. c) analog means an concept, situation, etc that resembles a different concept, situation, etc in some way to a writer. While the world reflected in the looking glass of your computer screen in these weekly problems might look like something else, I’m not entirely sure what that may be. Coda: at the very least Analog Dilemma is analog of Diagonal Lemma, or is it?
Situation:
To your left you see your neighbor’s dog strapped to a chair. Nails through the paws, staples through loose skin. Eyelids cut away so the dog has to watch everything. Hammers, hachets, chisels, handsaws, all caked in fur and gore. You’ve never seen what a blow torch could do to flesh before now.
To your right you see your other neighbors and their dog. Trying to potty train it. Dog in hands outstreteched, urinating, while the couple tries to keep nature from calling indoors, you see them whack it on the nose with a rolled up newspaper. They say something stern, something like “no, not inside” they point toward the house, “outside” they point outside. “Bad dog.”
In front of you, you take a long look at the cattle ranch, it stretches to both sides of your periphery. As chance would have it, the ranchers are rounding up their cattle. They seem nice, the cattle and the ranchers, a nice bond. No harsh words, only gentle guiding. It seems though that these ranchers are guiding them to the processing plant. Nicely.
This seems a bit much, you head to the backyard. Turns out your neighbor behind you is out on his porch with his dog. His dog. Dog was born there and looks liable to die there. It never had to do a second of work its whole life, everything’s been provided to it by your neighbor. Loving guy that he is. Though you once knew, you are no longer certain that the look on the nearly-always sleeping dog isn’t a melange of contentment and resignation.
Questions:
Should any of this be legal? Are animals property? Are animals only property? Are animals more like little children or chairs? Can property have property rights? Do animals have any rights? Should viscious, disgusting, over-the-top, part-of-Dahmer’s-worst-nightmare torture be legally allowable? What about housebreaking? What’s the difference, where’s the line? If you can’t torture, why can you kill? What laws should be in place concerning animals? What is the point of law? To protect people? To limit suffering? Whose suffering? Are rights natural? And what are natural rights? Who gives and receives them? Who says? Do laws/rights apply to everyone? For instance, Americans could survive completely without using animals for meat, but many in the Third World could not, is it immoral/should it be illegal for some and not others? What about animal skin or fur? Should law be interpreted in context or must it be derivable from first principles?
These and many more questions can be asked and possibly even answered. Feel free to discuss them for yourselves.
