透過您的圖書館登入
IP:44.192.20.240
  • Journals

動物解放與護生行動:從關懷生命協會的角度來探討

The Animal Liberation and the Action of Life Protection: Discussion from the Standpoint of the Life Conservationist Association

Abstracts


1993年,關懷生命協會創立時,即提出生命為本的護生哲學作為理論的綱領和行動的方向。但為了避免窄化關懷生命協會為宗教團體,也為了建構非宗教的動物保護論述,1996年協會翻譯出版彼得‧辛格《動物解放》,引介西方動保的經典作為有力的理論架構。本文分別從動物解放、護生倫理和動物權利三者的主張加以申論,分析三者的基本道德和論證的效力,以構成三者交互對話的論辯。其目的不在於協會動保運動的發展,而是在台灣的語境下,從動物倫理的角度,分析其立論的依據和護生倫理的實踐取向。在比對諸家理論的異同,本文發現協會低估動物權利在動保運動中的重要性,連帶著協會所提倡動物權的宗旨在理論上無法給予合理的證成。因此,提出護生倫理如何建構動物權的可能途徑,以作為護生行動的理論資源。

Parallel abstracts


In 1993, when the Life Conservationist Association was founded, a life-based philosophy of Life Protection was also proposed. It becomes the guiding principles for theory building and points out the direction for actual practice. Yet, to keep away from narrowing the development of the Association as becoming a religious group, a non-religious assertion for animal protection has to be established. Therefore, the Association has translated and published Peter Singer's monument, Animal Liberation in 1996, in order to introduce ideas of animal protection in the West. This work has become a classic and it has provided powerful theoretical framework supporting the argument of animal protection. This paper attempts to make an argument from three claims: animal liberation, ethics of life protection and animal rights. Their foundation of morality and evidence of proof will be analyzed, in order to examine the debate formed during the cross-dialogues among them. The purpose is not to look at the development of animal protection of the Association, but to analyze the basis of argumentation and the practical orientation of the ethics of life protection, under the context and environment in Taiwan. From the comparison among different theories, this study learns that the Association has underestimated the significance of animal rights in the animal protection campaign, and this indicates that the theory specified in the objective of the Association to promote animal rights is perhaps not legitimate. Therefore, we propose that the ethics of life protection can be a potential way of establishing animal rights, and this may also become resources of theory for the action of life protection.

References


Singer, Peter(1980)。Utilitarianism and Vegetarianism。Philosophy and Public Affairs。9(4)
Singer, Peter、孟祥森譯、錢永祥譯(1996)。動物解放。台北:關懷生命協會。
Tom, Regan(1983).The Case for Animal Rights.Berkeley:University of California Press.
考貝夫編黃宗慧譯(2002)。動物權與動物福利小百科。台北:台灣動物社會研究會。
汪盈利(2013)。動保足履關懷 20 年。台北:關懷生命協會。

Cited by


王家玉(2016)。我國動物福利觀點的動物保護法建構〔碩士論文,中原大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6840/cycu201600405

Read-around