保育價值與倫理學

Conservation Values and Ethics

伽理葛特(J. Baird Callicott) ； 陳雅雲 ； 黃惠敏 ； 李育青 ； 陳慈美

《鵝湖學誌》 25期 (2000/12) Pp. 145-187

https://doi.org/10.29653/LS.200012.0005

摘要

保育生物學是受到生物多樣性價值的推動而產生的。但是，爲什麼我們要看重生物多樣性呢？哲學家將兩種價值作出區分：工具性價值和內在性價值。生物多樣性的工具性價值包括：商品（如：實際或潛在的食物、醫藥、纖維和燃料等）；服務（如：授粉、養分循環、提供氧氣）；資訊（如：實際的科學知識、基因庫）；以及心理－靈性的滿足（如：自然之美、宗教上的敬畏、純理論的科學知識）等方面，提供給本身具內在價值的人類使用。生物多樣性也具有內在價值－它本身就具有目的，同時又是達到人類福祉的手段。其他形態的生命與我們一樣，都是自我組織的存有且具有本身的善。人類能夠爲其他生命本身的緣故而看重它們，同時也爲了它們所提供給我們的一切服務。爲了要把生物多樣性的價值與其他東西的價值作比較，經濟學家嘗試將生物多樣性的工具性價值和內在價值貨幣化。哲學家也以生物多樣性的價值爲基礎來建構保育倫理學。如果生物多樣性對人類只具有工具性價值，一個人爲了追求私利而破瓖它，可能會對其他人造成傷害－在這種情況下，破瓖生物多樣性是不道德的。假如生物多樣性還具有內在價值，它的被被壞就加倍的不道德了。聖經承認非人類物種的內在價值，（上帝宣告它們是「好的」）。因此，當代的猶太教和基督教的神學家建立起猶太－基督教管家的保育倫理學。其他許多各種宗教也都根據他們各自的經典和信仰傳統，建立起不同的保育倫理學。李奧波的大地倫理並不是以任何宗教信仰爲基礎，而是建立在當代的進化與生態生物學之上。從演化的觀點來看，人類與其他生物具有親裔的關係；從生態學的觀點看，人類只是「生物社群」中一個「普通的成員和市民」而已。根據李奧波的看法，從這些一般性的科學事實，產生出對「演化旅程中的同行的旅行伙伴」、「生物社群中的成員伙伴」、以及「社群本身」等的倫理義務。雖然現代的生態學承認大自然的改變和干擾是正常的，如果我們把李奧波的大地倫理根據這種科學上新的亮光作出修正，它仍然會是保育生物學中指導性的環境倫理學的。

關鍵字

環境倫理學 ； 生物多樣性 ； 保育生物學 ； 人類中心主義 ； 生物中心主義 ； 生態中心主義 ； 大地倫理

並列摘要

Conservation biology is driven by the value of biodiversity. But why should people value biodiversity? Philosophers have distinguished two basic types of value, instrumental and intrinsic. Biodiversity is instrumentally valuable for the goods (e.g., actual and potential food, medicine, fiber, and fuel), services (e.g., pollination, nutrient recycling, oxygen production), information (e.g., practical scientific knowledge, a genetic library), and psycho-spiritual satisfaction (e.g., natural beauty, religious awe, pure scientific knowledge) that it provides for intrinsically valuable human beings. Biodiversity may also be intrinsically valuable-valuable, that is, as an end in itself, as well as well-being. Like ourselves, other forms of life are self-organizing beings with goods of their own. And we human beings are capable of valuing other beings for their own sakes, as well as for what they do for us.In order to compare its value with the value of other things, economists have attempted to monetize both the instrumental and intrinsic value of biodiversity. Philosophers have also based conservation ethics on the value of biodiversity. If biodiversity is only instrumentally valuable to human beings, its destruction by one person in pursuit of personal gain may be harmful to another person-in which case the destruction of biodiversity may be immoral. If biodiversity also has intrinsic value, its destruction may be doubly immoral.The Bible recognizes the intrinsic value of nonhuman species (God declared them to be ”good”). Accordingly, contemporary Jewish and Christian theologians have formulated a Judeo-Christian Stewardship Conservation Ethics. Many other world religions are also developing distinct conservation ethics based on their scriptures and traditions. The Aldo Leopold Land Ethic is not based on any religion, but on contemporary evolutionary and ecological biology. From an evolutionary perspective, human beings kin to all other forms of life, and from an ecological perspective, human beings are ”plain members and citizens” of the ”biotic community.” According to Leopold, these general scientific facts generate ethical obligations to our ”fellow voyagers in the odyssey of evolutions,” to ”fellow-members of the biotic community,” and so that ”community as such.” Though ecology now acknowledges the normalcy of change and disturbance in nature, the Leopold Land Ethic, appropriately revised in the light of these recent developments in science, remains the guiding environmental ethic for conservation biology.

並列關鍵字

environmental Ethics ； biodiversity ； conservation Biology ； anthropocentrism ； biocentrism ； ecocentrism ； land ethic

參考文獻

Callicott,J. Baird(2000)。保育價值與倫理學。鵝湖學誌。25，145-187。

Aiken, W,T. Regan(1984).Earthbound: New Introductory Essays in Environmental Ethics.New York:Random House.

Aiken, W,T. Regan(1984).Earthbound: New Introductory Essays in Environmental Ethics.New York:Random House.

Ames, R. T. ,L. Becker(1992).Encyclopedia of Ethics.New York:Garland Press.

Ames, R. T. ,L. Becker(1992).Encyclopedia of Ethics.New York:Garland Press.