動物保護思想：彼得辛格之「動物解放」倫理探討

Animal Protection : Discussion on Peter Singer's Animal Liberaion Ethics

邱曉芬(Chiou Shiau-fen)

指導教授 ： 王順美

國立臺灣師範大學/理學院/環境教育研究所/碩士(1999年)

摘要

本論文旨在探討，彼得辛格「動物解放」的倫理觀點。動物解放運動是為了對抗，制度性剝削動物的情形，辛格則為此一激進的主張，提出嚴謹的哲學性辯護。
辛格指出部分動物像人一樣，具有「避免痛苦」的基本利益，並且不同物種的痛苦程度，可以粗略作比較。他認為「利益平等考量」是平等的基本要求，也是道德推理得到的終極原則；依據此原則，不應該排除或貶低動物的利益。因此，集約飼養以及多數的動物實驗，犯了嚴重的道德錯誤。
關於生命價值的高低，辛格採取偏好效益主義的立場，分成三類來處理。殺害具自我意識的個體所造成的損失，不能藉由製造新的個體而獲得彌補，因此人或動物的生存偏好，都應該受到保障。但是依效益主義理論，有條件地殺害缺乏自我意識、但是能感受痛苦的個體，是被允許的；不過符合條件的情形，實際上幾乎不存在。至於完全不能感受痛苦的個體，沒有道德地位可言。
對辛格的批評，可歸類為幾個方向。（1）道德界線的問題：包括語言能力、道德自主性、互惠關係。（2）平等考量的問題：包括賦予某些經驗較高的價值，將導致道德地位的不平等，以及積極責任的內容如何。（3）效益主義的問題：包括簡化道德、預設所有利益可量化、對生命的保障並非絕對的。（4）倫理觀的根本問題：包括忽略情感與社會關係的道德重要性，以及只重視個體、以人的能力為典範，而與生態倫理產生衝突。
最後，研究者建議了五個例子，將辛格的主張，適度轉化為教學的內容，既符合教育的目標和原則，也協助學生更瞭解動物的處境，思索尊重生命的意涵。

關鍵字

動物解放 ； 彼得辛格 ； 效益主義

並列摘要

The purpose of this thesis is to introduce and discuss Peter Singer’s theory about animal liberation. Peter Singer is probably the most influential theorist in animal liberation movement, which is aimed at opposing the deprivation of animals. Singer’s theory is a philosophical defense for the radical animal liberation movement. He believes that some animals, like people, can suffer, and the avoidance of sufferings is a fundamental interest for a being. He uses the “equal consideration of interests” as a basic requirement for equality and the ultimate principle of ethics.
He claims that neither the exclusion nor degrading of animal’s interests can be justified. In ethical considerations, the same degree of suffering (of different species) should be taken equally. Intensive animal farming and most animal experiments cause strong pains for the animals only to fulfill minor and trivial interests for human beings. Therefore, intensive animal farming and animal experiments violate an ethical principle, which is the equal consideration of interests.
Regarding the value of lives, Singer takes a preference utilitarian approach. He claims that only the self-conscious beings have preferences and only those beings’ lives should be protected by the ethical principle. Those who are not self-conscious but can feel pains can be morally killed and replaced, providing the killing process is painless. (However, such painless meat production hardly exists.) Those who cannot feel pains have no moral standings.
I also discussed the criticism to Singer’s theory, which can be classified into four types: (1) questions about the moral boundary, (2) questions about the equal consideration of interests, (3) questions about utilitarianism, and (4) fundamental questions about ethics. Hopefully, my introduction and discussion of Singer’s theory would provide some clarification in Taiwan’s environmental education regarding animal right.
I also propose 5 examples where Singer's ideas are used in education. Hopefully, these examples would show students the immorality of animal's current situation and teach them to respect lives.

並列關鍵字

animal liberaion ； Peter Singer ； utilitarianism

參考文獻

羅竹民（1997）：〈馬戲是馬的遊戲嗎？〉。《人本教育札記》，第101期，85-98頁。

Bekoff, M. & Meaney, C. A. (Eds.) (1998). Encyclopedia of animal rights and animal welfare. CT: Greenwood Press.

Benton, T. (1993). Natural relations: Ecology, animal rights, and social justice. NY: Verso.

Callicott, J. Baird (1980). Animal Liberation: A Triangular Affair, Environmental Ethics, 2, 311-328.

Callicott, J. Baird (1998). 'Back Together Again' Again, Environmental Values, 7, 461-475.