The work explores the philosophical question of whether cats can be considered people, using a humorous and satirical approach. It begins by likening the question to the age-old riddle of "Why is a hen?" suggesting that seemingly trivial inquiries can hold deeper significance. The narrative presents a hypothetical scenario involving a deceased wealthy man who leaves his estate to his sons, with a stipulation regarding the household's maintenance, including a beloved family cat. The eldest son, who dislikes cats, attempts to abandon the pet, prompting the second son, a cat lover, to challenge this decision in court. The crux of the legal dispute hinges on the definition of "household" and whether a cat qualifies as a member. The author argues that if cats are deemed people, the eldest son would be violating the will by neglecting the cat. To support this argument, the narrator proposes a court of inquiry, appointing himself as judge. He calls upon historical figures, King Solomon and Noah Webster, to provide definitions and insights. Through a series of questions, he establishes that the term "cat" is a noun, which, according to Webster, denotes a person, place, or thing. The narrator concludes that since a cat cannot be a place or an inanimate object, it must be classified as a person. The work humorously asserts that if even rabbits can be considered people, then cats certainly deserve the same status. The narrative culminates in a celebration of cats, advocating for their recognition as members of the household and, by extension, as people. The exploration of this question serves as a vehicle for broader reflections on identity, belonging, and the nature of companionship.
By Oliver Herford · First published 1921 · Genre: Humor, Philosophical, Social Commentary