"We decided that how we react to and treat those fellow mortals, wild and domestic, tells us more about ourselves than, perhaps, some of us want to know"
About this Quote
The phrase "fellow mortals" quietly detonates the human-animal hierarchy. Clooney isn’t talking about pets versus pests; he’s collapsing the distance we like to keep between "us" and everything we feel entitled to manage. Mortality becomes the shared credential, and that move forces the moral question away from sentimentality (Do we like animals?) toward accountability (What do our habits reveal when no one’s grading our compassion?).
The intent is civic, not cuddly. By framing it as "we decided", Clooney invokes a collective choice - the kind politics is supposed to be: not just administering rules, but setting the terms of who counts. "Wild and domestic" widens the net to include the creatures we claim to love and the ones we treat as inconvenience, threat, or background scenery. It’s a subtle indictment of selective empathy: we’ll post photos of rescues while shrugging at industrial cruelty, habitat destruction, or policies that treat living beings as property with occasional PR.
The subtext bites hardest in the closing clause: "more about ourselves than, perhaps, some of us want to know". That "perhaps" is polite, almost lawyerly, but it sharpens the accusation. Clooney suggests that cruelty, neglect, and casual dominance aren’t exceptions; they’re mirrors. In a political context, it reads as a warning about governance by convenience - how a society that normalizes harm toward the vulnerable (even nonhuman) trains itself to rationalize harm elsewhere. The animals are the test case. The real subject is character, exposed in how we treat those who can’t vote, argue back, or fit neatly into our moral branding.
The intent is civic, not cuddly. By framing it as "we decided", Clooney invokes a collective choice - the kind politics is supposed to be: not just administering rules, but setting the terms of who counts. "Wild and domestic" widens the net to include the creatures we claim to love and the ones we treat as inconvenience, threat, or background scenery. It’s a subtle indictment of selective empathy: we’ll post photos of rescues while shrugging at industrial cruelty, habitat destruction, or policies that treat living beings as property with occasional PR.
The subtext bites hardest in the closing clause: "more about ourselves than, perhaps, some of us want to know". That "perhaps" is polite, almost lawyerly, but it sharpens the accusation. Clooney suggests that cruelty, neglect, and casual dominance aren’t exceptions; they’re mirrors. In a political context, it reads as a warning about governance by convenience - how a society that normalizes harm toward the vulnerable (even nonhuman) trains itself to rationalize harm elsewhere. The animals are the test case. The real subject is character, exposed in how we treat those who can’t vote, argue back, or fit neatly into our moral branding.
Quote Details
| Topic | Kindness |
|---|
More Quotes by Nick
Add to List
