边缘案例论证可以成功驳倒康德的间接义务论吗?

Can Marginal Case Argument Argue Down Kant's Indirect Deontology Successfully?

在人与动物的关系问题上,康德持一种间接义务论的立场。该立场遭到现代动物伦理学家的广泛批评。一些康德主义者如雷根和伍德都采用边缘案例论证来批评康德的立场,并试图以此为基础建立人对非人动物的直接义务论。另一些康德主义者如科斯佳针对边缘案例论证的前提进行了细致的批评,但较少关注这一论证本身的结构和逻辑。一种新的批评方式是把边缘案例论证区分为积极使用与消极使用两种方式,进而分析它们各自在论证上的缺陷,最终指出以伍德为代表的对边缘案例论证的积极使用是自我挫败的,而以雷根为代表的消极使用虽然在批判康德时是成功的,但是它会因为产生新的“边缘案例”而瓦解雷根对动物权利的正面论证。

On the relationship between human and animals,Kant holds a position of indirect deontology,that is,due to the lack of rational nature of animals,human has no direct obligation to animals,but human has indirect obligation to animals.As a common way of argument in animal ethics,edge case argument is used by both neo-Kantians Tom Reagan and Ellen Wood to criticize Kant's indirect deontology.However,this argument is not an effective way to criticize Kant's indirect deontology.Korsgaard is careful to criticise the premise of the fringe case argument,but does not pay much attention to the argument itself.In fact,from the argument itself,we can distinguish two different ways of use,positive use and negative use,so as to better explain why the edge case argument is a failure of argument.