從物種主義觀點探討動物保護之實然與應然：以流浪犬貓與野生動物之衝突為例

Discussing the is-ought problem of animal protection in speciesism stance: Taking the issue of free-ranging unowned cat and dog as the invasive alien species for example.

林珮萱(Lin Pei-Xuan)

指導教授 ： 葉欣誠

國立臺灣師範大學/理學院/環境教育研究所/碩士(2022年)

https://doi.org/10.6345/NTNU202201628

摘要

動物保護行動受西方動物倫理哲學思想：「動物福利」與「動物權利」所影響。動物倫理主張動物具有與人類相同的道德地位，若人類因為物種差異而給予動物不一致的道德考量或對待，則犯「物種主義」之道德原則的謬誤。流浪犬貓係因人類的棄養與放養而在自然環境中建立族群，造成大量野生動物死傷故為生態的外來入侵種。犬貓流浪與衍生的入侵生態係由人類造成，減少其數量也是具有社會共識的行動。但是由於犬貓作為人類的同伴動物，使得不同群體對於減少流浪犬貓的方式意見不同，並產生爭論。若干動物保護者以動物倫理的正義觀點為由，主張流浪犬貓應該受保護的同時，對於增加其他動物的生命危險未多加表示，產生了偏好犬貓的物種主義的表象，以及「支持動物保護」卻「間接傷害更多動物」的動機與結果矛盾的情況。如此形成了動物保護的實務面與動物倫理的道德原則不相容，亦即動物保護的實然與應然分歧的情形。
本研究以「人類保護流浪犬貓但間接危害更多野生動物」為道德兩難命題。用動物倫理學者Peter Singer與Tom Regan之論點來推論本命題之應然面的主張，選擇保護犬貓者可能具有犬貓物種主義態度。實然面則透過文獻回顧與研究調查來建立，包括回顧「動物保護與動物倫理之關係」與「造成社會群眾對議題的立場不同的原因」相關的文獻，並藉由問卷調查法分析群眾對犬貓議題的道德判斷因素。本研究問卷調查結果顯示，社會群眾對議題的道德判斷因素，在直覺思考時多數人的道德判斷為正義傾向。高動物倫理信念者更有高的犬貓物種主義傾向，但在在犧牲困境中，保育類的道德地位更甚犬貓，而不是受到正義傾向驅動。對於真實的犬貓議題時，多數人傾向降低動物衝突的情況發生，認為要介入動物衝突事件，接受流浪貓狗的末端管理納入安樂死措施等。
以深度訪談法瞭解動物保護倡議人士對議題的真實想法後，本研究認為犬貓議題在動保領域與生態保育領域之間存在論述框架的不對等，唯認知人人皆具有知識盲區，尊重與願意跨域思考，才有助於解決犬貓議題。

關鍵字

物種主義 ； 動物保護 ； 動物福利 ； 野生動物 ； 流浪犬貓 ； 外來入侵種

並列摘要

The animal protection is deeply affected by animal ethic which includes human and non-human animal in the same moral community, and which is formed by Peter Singer's and Tom Regan’s publications, Animal Liberation and The Case for Animal Rights. Speciesism is a form of discrimination attitude, describing that someone unjustified gives moral consideration or treatment to others just in base of species differences. Cat and dog function as invasive species with killing numerous wild animals in natural environment, but they can't be treated as the removal object like others because of the intimate companion-animals in society. In this case, however, the animal welfare organizations who practice animal ethic in action usually protect the free-ranging unowned cat and dog’s animal right in nature, meanwhile take the victims under Cat’s and dog’s attack as an ecological problem rather than the moral object. Furthermore, they don’t save other invasive species life as cat and dog even though the species doesn’t harm wild animals.
In this research, the conservation issue in the interpretation of animal welfare frame, taking it as the moral proposition. The result shows that most of people including animal welfare practitioners accept euthanasia threatment into the stray animals management system. People who has the higher animal rights belief still is the dog or cat speciesism. Half of Taiwanese people know this issue, and 15% of people only know that stray dogs cause casualties to wild animals. this research shows that most people are more justice in moral judgement. People with higher animal ethics beliefs have higher dog and cat speciesism. But in the dilemma of sacrifice between different species, the moral status of endangered animal is higher than dogs and cats for them. About the issues, most people tend to reduce the occurrence of animal conflicts, and accept to take the euthanasia measures in stray cats and dogs management.
After understanding the real thoughts of animal protection advocates on the issue through in-depth interviews, this research believes that there is an asymmetry in the discussion framework between people in the field of animal protection and conservation biology. Thinking across domains can help resolve this issue.

並列關鍵字

speciesism ； animal protection ； animal welfare ； wild animal ； invasive alien species ； cat ； dog

參考文獻

Abbott, I. (2002). Origin and spread of the cat, Felis catus, on mainland Australia, with a discussion of the magnitude of its early impact on native fauna. Wildlife Research, 29(1), 51-74.

Adams, M. (2018). Towards a critical psychology of human–animal relations. Social and personality psychology compass, 12(4), e12375.

Althaus, F., Williams, A., Schlacher, T. A., Kloser, R. J., Green, M. A., Barker, B. A., ... & Schlacher-Hoenlinger, M. A. (2009). Impacts of bottom trawling on deep-coral ecosystems of seamounts are long-lasting. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 397, 279-294.

Amiot, C. E., & Bastian, B. (2015). Toward a psychology of human–animal relations. Psychological bulletin, 141(1), 6.

Armstrong, J., Friesdorf, R., & Conway, P. (2019). Clarifying gender differences in moral dilemma judgments: the complementary roles of harm aversion and action aversion. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(3), 353-363.