动物权利如何应对捕食问题?  

How Should Animal Rights Respond to Predation?

作　　者：孙亚君 SUN Yajun(School of Event and Communication,Shanghai University of International Business and Economics,Shanghai,201620)

机构地区：[1]上海对外经贸大学会展与传播学院,上海201620

出　　处：《自然辩证法通讯》2023年第3期30-37,共8页Journal of Dialectics of Nature

基　　金：教育部人文社会科学研究项目“环境伦理的实践力整合研究”(项目编号:21YJCZH144)。

摘　　要：动物权利的道德实践必须回答“捕食问题”,即,是否应该干涉自然界中的捕食甚至灭绝食肉动物。本文剖析了汤姆·里根关于此实践困境的立场(即,不干涉自然)的三种辩护,即:(1)非人动物作为道德受体免于责罚;(2)保护人类免于被食肉动物攻击是一种特殊情形;(3)不干涉动物界的弱肉强食是对动物自身能力的敬重。但是,分析表明,这三种辩护都与动物权利自身的伦理学体系的核心相矛盾。进而,本文展示了权利论面对该实践困境的可能的有效辩护:一方面,灭绝食肉动物的实践是以一种“剥夺”的伤害替换“侵害”的伤害,因而不具有应然性;另一方面,“生命价值”的阐明也为保护人类免受食肉动物攻击提供了合理的辩护。The moral practice of animal rights must respond to the problem of predation,i.e.,ought we to interfere with predation or even to eradicate all carnivores in nature?In this paper,I analyze Tom Regan’s stance on this practical dilemma(namely,we ought not to interfere with nature)and his three kinds of reasoning for his stance:(1)non-human animals should be exempt from punishment as moral receptors;(2)protecting human beings from being attacked by carnivores is a special case;and(3)not interfering with the law of the jungle in the animal kingdom is a respect for the competence of animals in nature.But the analysis of this article demonstrates that none of these three kinds of reasoning could be consistent with the gist of the ethical system of animal rights.By referring to the axiological part of animal rights,this paper provides a possible reasoning for solving the dilemma:(1)to eradicate a carnivorous animal is to substitute a harm of infliction with a harm of deprivation,and therefore it is amoral;and(2)the clarification of“value of life”enables us to reasonably justify the conduct of protecting humans against being attacked by carnivores.

关 键 词：汤姆·里根 伤害 生命主体 亲护性 生命价值 

分 类 号：B843.2[哲学宗教—心理学]