論經濟動物的困境與解決之道;On the Predicament and Solution of Economic Animals

NCUIR > College of Liberal Arts at National Central University > Executive Master of Philosophy > Electronic Thesis & Dissertation > Item 987654321/65347

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://ir.lib.ncu.edu.tw/handle/987654321/65347

Title:	論經濟動物的困境與解決之道;On the Predicament and Solution of Economic Animals
Authors:	張玉玲;Chang,Yu-Linn
Contributors:	哲學研究所在職專班
Keywords:	經濟動物;動物權;利益評等考量;生命主體;道德地位;economic animals;animals rights;equal consideration of interest;subjects of life;moral status
Date:	2014-07-25
Issue Date:	2014-10-15 15:28:28 (UTC+8)
Publisher:	國立中央大學
Abstract:	本文探討經濟動物的困境，希望透過哲學探究，分析其中的倫理問題，找出改善經濟動物困境的有效方法。本文參考三位哲學家的理論進行探究。辛格（Peter Singer）主張個體的感知（sentience）是擁有道德地位的充要條件，辛格反對「物種主義」（speciesism），認為我們應該給予動物平等的道德考量。動物應該從工廠化農場解放出來，農場對待動物的方式是不道德的，人類獲得的利益無法與動物承受的痛苦相比，因此，我們有義務解除經濟動物的痛苦，應該考量用素食來抵制對經濟動物的殘忍行徑。雷根（Tom Regn）則主張，我們對於「道德行動者」與「道德受動者」，同樣具有直接的道德義務，因為這二者都有固有價值，符合生命主體的判準。由於動物也適用於道德原則的應用範圍，動物也是享有權利的。假如傷害動物是無法逃避的，我們必須要用權利觀點的各項原則來回應以及減輕經濟動物的痛苦。沃倫（Mary Anne Warren）則藉由多重判準概念，賦予動物以相應的道德地位。沃倫除了考量動物本身的感知能力、心靈能力之外，也將生態、以及與人類具有感情的動物考量在內，全面地考量動物的道德地位。沃倫指出：人類與動物、植物和無生命事物之間擁有不同的道德地位，不同的道德地位代表道德行動者不同的道德義務。本文根據這些原則，為經濟動物困境尋求合理的倫理分析。根據以上三位哲學家的論述，我們認為雖然未能達到完全保障動物之生命權利，但對於經濟動物的福利必須予以高度的重視。本文認為我們應全力減低經濟動物在飼養上、屠宰上所受到的痛苦。我們有義務去監督對經濟動物的不人道的對待，提高農場的管理與認證標準，應盡量推行素食等，以有效地減低經濟動物的苦難。 ;This thesis discusses the plight of economic animals, and hope that through philosophical reflections and analysis of the ethical issues concerning economic animals, we may to find an effective way to improve the benefits of economic animals. In order to give a fuller view of the situation of economic animals, I explore the theories of three philosophers as follow. Peter Singer advocates the individual′s sentience is the necessary and sufficient conditions of moral status. Singer argues against speciesism and insists that we should give equal moral consideration of animals. The treatment of farm animals is immoral, the animals should be freed from the factory farms, since their sufferings overrates the interests of human desire.We should practice vegetarianism in order to boycott cruelty to farm animals. Tom Regan argued that we have direct obligations towards "moral agent" and "moral patient", because both have intrinsic value are subjects of life. Hence, animals are also protected under the scope of moral principles, and thus have rights. If the animal sufferings is unavoidable, it is imperative for us to employ the principles of right to alleviate their pains. Lastly, Mary Anne Warren use multi-criteria concept for the consideration of moral status of animals, in addition to animal′s sentience and psychic abilities, but also ecological, and animal-human relations, in order to have a comprehensive evaluation of the moral status of animals. Warren points out: between humans and inanimate things, animals have a indifferent moral status, which commands different moral obligations. Based on these principles, Warren seeks to have a rational ethical analysis of the plight of economic animals. Accordingly, we argue that though we do not establish full protection of animal rights, we have to deal seriously the welfare of economic animals. We should try our best to reduce the sufferings of economic animals in their process of feeding, growing and slaughtering. We have the obligations to monitor the inhuman treatments of animals, raise the standard of management and certification of animal farms, promotes vegetarianism so as to reduce effectively the plight of economic animals.
Appears in Collections:	[Executive Master of Philosophy] Electronic Thesis & Dissertation

Files in This Item:

File	Description	Size	Format
index.html		0Kb	HTML	1028	View/Open

社群 sharing

Loading...