动物权利之华山论剑——评《动物权利论争》

“我们为什么要保护动物？”对此，现代环境伦理学提供了四种伦理思考：其一，审慎理论。保护动物对人类有利；其二，仁慈理论。对动物麻木不仁和残酷成性是人性发育不完整和有欠缺的表现；其三，动物解放论。能够感受苦乐是拥有利益和获得关怀的充分条件，动物拥有感觉能力，人类需要从道德上关怀动物；其四，动物权利论。动物拥有权利，人类不能仅仅将它们当作工具。     

中国环境管理干部学院动物伦理教育概述

对中国环境管理干部学院的动物伦理教育进行了总结,提出动物伦理教育是大学生思想政治教育的一个重要方面的观点,指出动物伦理教育不仅事关动物,而且关系到大学生人格的培养。     

环境伦理学在生态文明建设中的功能与使命

建设生态文明不能光靠技术的进步，社会制度、生活方式、价值观也必须要作出相应的调整。因此．中国的环境伦理学要有一种使命感，既要积极参与环境教育，培养人的环境伦理意识，也要参与生态文明建设目标的设定．并为新的国际制度的建立提供伦理基础和价值引导。我们不能把环境伦理学仅仅理解为伦理学的一个小分支或者是传统伦理学的一种应用，而应把它当作一种新的思维方式．从全新的角度来对传统伦理学进行反思，使整个伦理学具有环境视野和生态关怀意识。     

因素食而诞生的动物伦理学名著

彼得·辛格和汤姆·雷根都是素食者,他们从关注素食问题开始,走上了动物伦理学的研究道路,创立了关于动物解放和动物权利的学说。作为动物伦理学领域的权威学者,二者的研究进路有很大不同,辛格是效用主义者,雷根是权利论者,但他们都主张一种比较彻底的动物保护观,主张动物与人类平等,反对为了人类的贪欲和利益而伤害动物。他们的观点给了动物保护以强大的推动力。     

动物权利思想历史考察

动物权利问题是西方环境伦理学中的一个重要问题,本文根据人类历史过程中自然观的变化及生产方式的变化对人与动物关系的影响,把动物权利思想观念分为古代朴素的动物权利思想、近代动物权利思想以及现代动物权利观三种理论形态.     

如何建构当代中国的环境伦理？——如何建构中国环境伦理学学派？

中国环境伦理学只有建立自己的话语体系、理论框架和概念体系，形成自己的环境伦理理论和实践，才能够真正对解决实际问题起到作用。中国环境伦理学学派的建构不能像西方一样走不同学派争论的路，而应朝建立统一、开放、完整的环境伦理学的方向发展。为此．我们要对西方不同学派的理论进行整合。实践是环境伦理学的精华。我们需要通过对社会不同角色、不同阶层人的伦理态度、伦理行为的研究，来制定一套比较和谐的、符合我们社会实际情况的环境道德标准、道德原则和行为规范。     

论公众参与的环境伦理观

公众参与(Public Participation)是环境影响评价(EIA)和战略影响评价(SEA)的重要内容,也是环境保护事业发展的基础.影响公众参与的因素有环境法律、环境经济、环境文化和环境伦理四个方面,其中环境伦理在公众参与和环境行为方面发挥巨大的作用.本文从伦理学角度论述了人类环境伦理观的形成,环境伦理对公众参与环境保护的影响以及可持续发展的环境道德原则.     

生态伦理学的若干热点问题

<正>1923年,法国哲学家施韦兹发表论文《文明的哲学——文化与伦理学》,在人类思想史上首次提出了创立生态伦理学的主张。自从生态伦理学诞生之后,生态伦理问题成为了西方伦理学界研究的热点。现将近年来中西方生态伦理学界对有关的热点、难点问题的研究状况进行梳理、归纳、总结。     

“拒绝皮草”中的消费伦理

"皮草"议题已经成为今日中国动物保护运动中的一个热点。然而,拒绝皮革及其所蕴含的消费伦理却未能得到更为深入的开展和推广。为此,国内外的动物保护组织需要更多的沟通与合作,以普及消费时代的道德理念。     

法律何时给动物不受虐待的权利

所谓动物福利，就是让动物在康乐的状态下生存，其标准包括动物无任何疾病、无行为异常、无心理紧张压抑和痛苦等。基本原则包括：让动物享有不受饥渴的自由、生活舒适的自由、不受痛苦伤害的自由、生活无恐惧感和悲伤感的自由以及表达天性的自由。1822年，世界上第一部与动物福利有关的法律在爱尔兰通过。目前，许多西方发达国家均对动物福利进行立法。在亚洲，日本、韩国等国也有动物福利法。截至目前，包括一些非洲国家在内的世界上100多个国家都出台了反虐待动物的法案。而我国的情况又是怎样的呢?     

Fundamental Moral Attitudes to Animals and Their Role in Judgment: An Empirical Model to Describe Fundamental Moral Attitudes to Animals and Their Role in Judgment on the Culling of Healthy Animals During an Animal Disease Epidemic

In this paper, we present and defend the theoretical framework of an empirical model to describe people’s fundamental moral attitudes (FMAs) to animals, the stratification of FMAs in society and the role of FMAs in judgment on the culling of healthy animals in an animal disease epidemic. We used philosophical animal ethics theories to understand the moral basis of FMA convictions. Moreover, these theories provide us with a moral language for communication between animal ethics, FMAs, and public debates. We defend that FMA is a two-layered concept. The first layer consists of deeply felt convictions about animals. The second layer consists of convictions derived from the first layer to serve as arguments in a debate on animal issues. In a debate, the latter convictions are variable, depending on the animal issue in a specific context, time, and place. This variability facilitates finding common ground in an animal issue between actors with opposing convictions.     

Animal Agriculture: Symbiosis, Culture, or Ethical Conflict?

Several writers on animal ethics defend the abolition of most or all animal agriculture, which they consider an unethical exploitation of sentient non-human animals. However, animal agriculture can also be seen as a co-evolution over thousands of years, that has affected biology and behavior on the one hand, and quality of life of humans and domestic animals on the other. Furthermore, animals are important in sustainable agriculture. They can increase efficiency by their ability to transform materials unsuitable for human consumption and by grazing areas that would be difficult to harvest otherwise. Grazing of natural pastures is essential for the pastoral landscape, an important habitat for wild flora and fauna and much valued by humans for its aesthetic value. Thus it seems that the environment gains substantially when animals are included in sustainable agricultural systems. But what about the animals themselves? Objections against animal agriculture often refer to the disrespect for animals’ lives, integrity, and welfare in present intensive animal production systems. Of the three issues at stake, neither integrity nor animal welfare need in principle be violated in carefully designed animal husbandry systems. The main ethical conflict seems to lie in the killing of animals, which is inevitable if the system is to deliver animal products. In this paper, we present the benefits and costs to humans and animals of including animals in sustainable agriculture, and discuss how to address some of the ethical issues involved.     

Does Organic Farming Face Distinctive Livestock Welfare Issues? – A Conceptual Analysis

The recent development and growth oforganic livestock farming and the relateddevelopment of national and internationalregulations has fueled discussions amongscientists and philosophers concerning theproper conceptualization of animal welfare.These discussions on livestock welfare inorganic farming draw on the conventionaldiscussions and disputes on animal welfare thatinvolve issues such as different definitions ofwelfare (clinical health, absence of suffering,sum of positive and negative experiences,etc.), the possibility for objective measuresof animal welfare, and the acceptable level ofwelfare. It seems clear that livestock welfareis a value-laden concept and that animalwelfare science cannot be made independent ofquestions of values and ethics. The questioninvestigated here is whether those values thatunderpin organic farming, in particular, alsoaffect the interpretation of livestock welfare,and, if so, how. While some of the issuesraised in connection with organic farming arerelatively uncontroversial, others are not. Theintroduction of organic farming values seems tointroduce new criteria for what counts as goodanimal welfare, as well as a different ethicalbasis for making moral decisions on welfare.Organic farming embodies distinctive systemicor communitarian ethical ideas and the organicvalues are connected to a systemic conceptionof nature, of agriculture, of the farm, and ofthe animal. The new criteria of welfare arerelated to concepts such as naturalness,harmony, integrity, and care. While the organicvalues overlap with those involved in theconventional discussion of animal welfare, someof them suggest a need to set new prioritiesand to re-conceptualize animal welfare – forexample, with respect to ``naturalness,' inrelation to the possibilities for expression ofnatural behavior and in relation to animalintegrity as a concept for organismic harmony.The organic perspective also seems to suggest awider range of solutions to welfare problemsthan changes in farm routines or operations onthe animals. The systemic solutions include thechoice and reproduction of suitable breeds,changes in the farm structure, and changes inthe larger production and consumption system – including consumer perceptions andpreferences. But the organic values may alsocall for sacrifices of individual welfare in aconventional sense in order to advance welfarefrom the perspective of organic farming.Whether this is good or bad cannot be decidedwithout entering into an inquiry and discussionof the values and ethics involved.     

Deliberating Animal Values: a Pragmatic—Pluralistic Approach to Animal Ethics

Debates in animal ethics are largely characterized by ethical monism, the search for a single, timeless, and essential trait in which the moral standing of animals can be grounded. In this paper, we argue that a monistic approach towards animal ethics hampers and oversimplifies the moral debate. The value pluralism present in our contemporary societies requires a more open and flexible approach to moral inquiry. This paper advocates the turn to a pragmatic, pluralistic approach to animal ethics. It contributes to the development of such an approach in two ways. It offers a pragmatist critique of ethical monism in animal ethics and presents the results of a qualitative study into the value diversity present in the different ways of thinking about animals in the Netherlands. Carefully arranged group discussions resulted in the reconstruction of four distinctive moral value frameworks that may serve as instruments in the future process of moral inquiry and deliberation in the reflection on animal use.     

Critical Anthropomorphism and Animal Ethics

Anthropomorphism has long been considered a cardinal error when describing animals. Ethicists have feared the consequences of misrepresenting animals in their reasoning. Recent research within human-animal studies, however, has sophisticated the notion of anthropomorphism. It is suggested that avoiding anthropomorphism merely creates other morphisms, such as mechanomorphism. Instead of avoiding anthropomorphism, it is argued that it is a communicative strategy that should be used critically. Instances of anthropomorphism in animal ethics are analyzed in this paper. Some analogies made between people and non-human animals in present theories of animal ethics are clear instances of psychological anthropomorphism. Other analogies are implicit cases of cultural anthropomorphism. It is argued that animal ethics needs to take the wider discourse of critical anthropomorphism into account in order to sophisticate the understanding and use of anthropomorphic projections. Anthropomorphism is an efficient tool of communication, and it may be made an adequate one as well.     

Strong Patient Advocacy and the Fundamental Ethical Role of Veterinarians

This essay examines the fundamental role of veterinarians in companion animal practice by developing the idea of veterinarians as strong advocates for their nonhuman animal patients. While the practitioner-patient relationship has been explored extensively in medical ethics, the relation between practitioner and animal patient has received relatively less attention in the expanding but still young field of veterinary ethics. Over recent decades, social and professional ethical perspectives on human-animal relationships have undergone major change. Today, the essential role of veterinarians is not entirely clear. Furthermore, veterinarians routinely face pressure, often insidious, to refrain from pursuing their patients’ vital interests. In exploring the concept of strong patient advocacy, this essay investigates the increasingly common suggestion that veterinarians have ‘primary obligation’ and ‘first allegiance’ to their animal patients rather than to other parties, such as their clients or employers. The related concept of a fiduciary duty, which is sometimes encountered in medical ethics, is similarly explored as it applies to companion animal practice. The resultant idea of a strong patient advocate places companion animal veterinarians conceptually and ethically close to human health professionals, not least pediatricians.     

Science, Pigs, and Politics: A New Zealand Perspective on the Phase-Out of Sow Stalls

Sows housed in stalls are kept insuch extreme confinement that they are unableto turn around. In some sectors of the porkindustry, sows are subjected to this degree ofconfinement for almost their entire lives(apart from the brief periods associated withmating). While individual confinement isrecognized by farmers and animal welfarecommunity organizations alike, as a valuabletool in sow husbandry (to mitigate againstaggression), what remains questionable from ananimal welfare point of view is the necessityto confine sows in such small spaces.In 2001, the Australian Journal ofAgricultural Research published a reviewarticle on the science associated with the useof the sow stall, and claimed that ``noscientific evidence to support therecommendation in the Code of Practice advisingagainst housing of sows in stalls followed byhousing in crates' (Barnett et al., 2001, p. 21).If all the available scientific publications onthe animal welfare implications of sow stallsare consulted (many of which did not feature inthe above review), then one will indeed findscientific evidence to support recommendationsagainst the housing of sows in stalls. Becausethere is science on both sides of this policydivide, the argument to defend the use of sowstalls, therefore, is not one of science vspublic opinion, but one of ethics.An analysis of the scientific argumentsagainst the use of the sow stall should be usedto encourage ethical debate on this issue. Asan ethical debate, the issue of the use of thesow stall can then focus on the degree ofsuffering we as a society are willing totolerate in agricultural practices, and theanimal welfare costs associated with extremeeconomies of scale in sow stocking rates,rather than get bogged down in red herringdebates over whether there is any suffering atall.     

How to do Animal Ethics

Many think doing animal ethics demands we see moral humanism as a speciesist prejudice of the kind found with sexism and racism. The only serious case for this rests on the Argument from Marginal Cases. We find that argument to the point, but show that properly understood it supports humanism. Understanding why it does this lets us see how we ought to go on in animal ethics.