It seems like everywhere you go in the land of fictional, there’s always this one paradigm you can’t avoid: Cats are evil, dogs are good–with the former sometimes being so evil as to plot world domination. In theory, this is highly amusing; in practice, as in real life, it makes no sense.
Firstly, this paradigm implicitly argues that animals have souls. I don’t think this is true–and if it is true, then there should at least be a corollary which states that only non-tasty animals have souls.
Secondly, cats are too damn lazy to be evil. At their very best, cats are chaotic neutral–they just want to be left alone so they can get high on catnip and shag. Their philosophy of life is basically this: “Human beings exist to feed us and change the channel whenever QI comes on”–because, as everybody knows, cats love Stephen Fry. This is one of the mysteries of the universe.–“It is in our best interest not to try to overthrow them, because if we did then we’d have to do all the work.”
Dogs, on the other hand, are not lazy. They love people, and probably would do most anything to keep their owners safe–most of them at the very least–which opens up the possibility of an I, Robot scenario (sadly, I am referring to the2004 film and not the original novel which was a kajillion times better) in which dogs enslave the human race in order to protect us from ourselves. Their philosophy of life is this: “Must protect master from harm! *Attempts to bite bumper of 18-wheeler*”
So, dogs, even though they are in essence “more good” than cats, are also more likely take over the world because the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and tasty tasty roadkill.