论文部分内容阅读
由归真堂活熊取胆事件引发的公众讨论是一个重要的公共伦理事件。这一事件折射出的是人们在“人对动物是否负有、以及负有何种道德义务”这一问题上的分歧。对人们用来证明“人对动物不负有道德义务”的几种常见理据的批驳,为人们认可并接受人对动物的道德义务扫除了重要的理论障碍。不伤害动物是人对动物负有的一种初始义务,这一义务蕴涵三个伦理内涵:伤害动物的有错推定论;伤害动物者承担举证责任;即使能够获得伦理辩护,伤害动物也不是人的一种权利,而只是一种被允许的行为。在对人的义务与对动物的义务发生冲突的场合,应遵循三条权衡原则,即自卫原则、基本利益优先原则和伤害最小化原则。人们对野生动物与对驯养动物的实际义务是有差别的,对前者的实际义务主要表现为不干涉,对后者的实际义务则主要表现为关心其福利。推动动物福利立法是人类文明发展的趋势,也是建设生态文明的内在要求。
The public debate triggered by the Kumagawa Church bear-bile event is an important public-ethical event. This incident reflects the disagreement on the issue of whether people have and do not have any moral obligation to animals. Criticism of several common doctrines that people use to prove that “human beings have no moral obligation to animals” has removed important theoretical obstacles to their recognition and acceptance of their moral obligations to animals. Do not hurt animals is a kind of human beings have an initial obligation to animals, the obligation contains three ethical implications: animal misconduct presumption of injury; animal injury bear the burden of proof; even if the ethical defense can be ethically harmed animals are not human A kind of right, but only a permitted behavior. Where human obligations conflict with animal obligations, three trade-off principles should be followed: the principle of self-defense, the principle of priority of basic interests, and the principle of minimization of harm. There is a difference between the actual obligations of wildlife and domesticated animals. The actual obligations on the former are mainly non-interference, whereas the latter’s actual obligations are mainly concerned with their welfare. The promotion of animal welfare legislation is the trend of human civilization development, but also the inherent requirements of building ecological civilization.