論人與動物的道德地位

日益明顯的動物倫理爭議，背後的關鍵問題乃在於「人與動物之道德地位是否平等」。本研究為探討此問題，分別檢視了具代表性的不同動物倫理主張。在主張人與動物之道德地位為平等、甚至後者地位可能高於前者的一方，是以Peter Singer、Tom Regan與Mark Rowlands等人理論為例，並就三者理論歸納出「人無道德上相關之獨特性」與「根據理論得出之平等判斷」兩大部分。在主張人與動物之道德地位為不平等，並前者地位高於後者的一方，是以Holmes Rolston, III與Roger Scruton等人理論為例。其中，Rolston乃是就「人與動物是否存在道德上之相關差異」問題與Singer等人交鋒，然而，不僅其論述並不成功，這交鋒的結果以及雙方立場對抗至今的情形，也說明了其中缺少更具說服力的主張。本研究因此認為Scruton的理論能為此問題帶來嶄新視野，他揭露了Singer等人理論在追求取信於人之過程中，對現實中為人所享有的崇高道德地位的倚賴，但卻忽略了構成此現實的重要因素不在乎他們所羅列的人的表層能力，卻在乎人更深層的獨特本質。對此，Scruton是以先驗方法提出解釋，繼而綜合他對人類道德關係之脆弱性的發現，歸納出不應將人所享有之崇高道德地位歸給動物的結論。本研究除了以此為根據而初步提出一套動物倫理來回應人應如何對待動物之問題外，也欲藉此指出，將崇高道德地位唯獨歸給人並非是人們關懷動物的阻礙，相較於此，人們更需要在乎的，反倒是人自古以來就不斷得到證明的、在道德上的軟弱無力，它才是使人與動物都持續承受痛苦傷害的真正原因。

關鍵字

動物倫理；道德地位；動物權利；人類獨特性；保守主義

並列摘要

The crux of the increasingly visible animal ethical issue lies in whether humans and animals are morally equal. The aim of this study is to address the issue by attending to each of the representative theories about animal ethics. From the study on the accounts proposed by Peter Singer, Tom Regan and Mark Rowlands, the major advocates for an equal or higher moral status of animals comes the following conclusions: the dismissal of humans’ morally relevant uniqueness and the affirmation that humans and animals are morally equal. On the other hand, Holmes Rolston III, Roger Scruton and others oppose the idea and claim the former’s superiority to the latter. However, Rolston’s debate with Singer and others over the controversy of animal’s morally relevant difference can barely be called a success. The outcome and the continued debate point out the lack of persuasive arguments. Hence, as this study indicates, Scruton furthers his theories as one possible door to new perspectives by exposing the theoretic defects of Singer and others. According to Scruton, they establish the theories in the context of the high moral status entitled to human without realizing that the key to human’s morally unappalled status lies not in what we can obviously do, but in uniquely what we are deep inside. Scruton explicates the issue with the a priori method and what he uncovered about the fragility of moral relationship among humans to conclude that humans should by no means relinquish our high moral status to animals. In an appropriate way, this study proposes a preliminary animal ethics to respond to the question of how animals should be treated. Most importantly, it calls attention to the statement that human’s uniquely and morally high status is not the hindrance on the path to care for animals. The irrefutable fact that we are morally weak is, on the contrary, the bottom reason why humans and animals have suffered since the beginning of time.