动物伦理中的理性原则与情感原则

On Rational and Emotional Principles in Animal Ethics

动物伦理的论证可以区分为理性原则和情感原则,这两种原则可以看作诸多动物伦理原则的一个简单划分。亚里士多德、托马斯·阿奎那、笛卡儿等理性主义哲学家均主张人类对待动物的理性原则,认为动物只能作为人类的手段和工具,动物不具有和人类平等的道德地位。在动物权利的论辩中,汤姆·雷根主张权利的范围应该推广到动物,而非局限于人类内部。即使雷根一再强调他的论证是完全出于理性,然而为爱伦·怀特、玛丽·沃伦等同样出于理性的论证所驳倒,并且雷根所承诺的动物权利也仅限于作为生命体验主体的高等动物。将权利的依据诉诸感性的生命体验,雷根并未意识到其实他所遵循的是情感原则。事实上,"保护动物"的契约依旧是理性存在者之间的道德问题,只能为动物伦理提供一种"外在的理由"。动物伦理的情感原则主张人类应该同情动物,彼得·辛格的论证印证了这一点,他放弃对动物和人类本质的区分。康德的道德哲学仅限于理性存在者内部,从而认为人类对动物没有直接的道德义务,动物伦理的正当性基于理性存在者的仁慈与情感,对动物的责任间接地属于对理性存在者的责任。以边沁为代表的功利主义亦将动物伦理奠基于动物对痛苦与快乐的感受以及人类对动物的同情之上。情感原则能够为保护动物提供"内在的理由",并且同样适用于对待其他无理性能力者的道德行为。动物伦理学的争论焦点集中表现为两种原则之间的冲突,协同学所提供的"整体性"思维可以有效化解这种原则之间的冲突,并为动物伦理提供更加坚实的证明。

The various principles of argumentation on animal ethics can be roughly divided into rational and emotional principles. The rationalistic philosophers, such as Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas and Rene Descartes etc., proposed that human should treat animals with rational principles, and animals, without the same ethic status as human, should only be means and instruments for human to use. In argumentation on animal rights, Tom Regan advocated that the rights should be extended to animals rather than be limited to human. Even if Regan kept on stressing that his demonstration was completely based on rational principles, his argument was refuted by Alan White and Mary Anne Warren etc. whose arguments were also out of rational principles. Besides, the animal rights proposed by Regan were only limited to higher animals, the subjects of living. In confining rights to subjects with living experiences, Regan didn＇t realize that the principles he followed were actually emotional principles. In fact, the contracts on animal protection remain moral problems providing an external reason for animal ethics. The emotional principles in animal ethics advocate sympathy for animals, which is manifested by Peter Singer＇s theory, in which he gave up making a distinction between animals and human. According to Kant’s moral philosophy confined within the rational beings, human have no direct moral responsibility for animals, the justification of animal ethics is based on benevolence and compassion of rational beings, and the responsibility for animals is the indirect responsibility for human themselves. The utilitarianism, represented by Jeremy Bentham, also bases animal ethics on animals’feeling about pain and pleasure and on human＇s compassion for animals. The emotional principles provide an internal reason for animal protection, which is also applicable for the moral conduct of treating other non-rational beings. The argument on animal ethics mainly focuses on the conflict between rational and emotional principles. Wholism-oriented thinking proposed by synergetics resolves the conflict effectively, and provides a more reasonable demonstration for animal ethics as well.