间接禁食立法模式下犬猫食用权之谬误

The Fallacy of the Right of Eating Dogs and Cats in the Legislative Model of Indirect Fasting

“法律没有禁止吃猫狗肉”是未经严谨规范考察和充分法律解释而得出的轻率结论,“吃猫狗肉”由此被视为权利。在权利观之下,动物保护者陷入了“人民战争的汪洋大海”,甚至其自身也在“承认现行法下吃狗肉的权利”和“反对吃狗肉”的思维矛盾中走上了宣讲“不吃来路不明的狗肉”的行动轨道。实际上,尊重现行法规范,并综合运用文义解释、体系解释、目的解释和社会学解释等多元法律解释方法得出的结论是:现行法律禁止以食用为目的的猫狗屠宰与销售,商业性屠宰销售猫狗行为的非法性否定了消费者购买食用猫狗肉行为的正当性。但凡权利,必得有法律上的正当性,故而吃猫狗权是不成立的。禁食猫狗立法归属以社会利益为本位的社会法域,尽快制定《伴侣动物保护和管理法》,从“间接禁食”立法模式转向“直接禁食”模式,是实现国家有效干预和社会治理法治化的重要方面。

“There is no law against eating cats and dogs”——this rash conclusion is drawn without rigorous normative examination and adequate legal interpretation,"Eating cat and dog meat"was thus regarded as a right.Under the concept of rights,animal protectors fell into the“vast ocean of people’s war”,and even embark on the action track of preaching“don’t eat dogs of unknown origin by the contradiction between"recognizing the right to eat dogs under the current law"and"opposing eating dogs".In fact,respecting the norms of the current law and comprehensively using multiple legal interpretation methods such as literal interpretation,system interpretation,purpose interpretation and sociological interpretation,the conclusion is that the current law prohibits the slaughter and sale of cats and dogs for the purpose of food,and the illegality of commercial slaughter and sale of cats and dogs denies the legitimacy of consumers’purchase of edible cat and dog meat.All rights must have legal legitimacy,consequently,the right to eat cats and dogs is not tenable.The legislation of fasting cats and dogs belongs to the social legal domain based on social interests.Formulating the companion animal protection and management law as soon as possible and changing the legislative model from"indirect fasting"to"direct fasting"is an important aspect of realizing the effective intervention of the state and the legalization of social governance.