认真对待动物正义:契约主义的视角

Taking Animal Justice Seriously: Perspective of Contractarianism

罗尔斯式动物正义论者通过诉诸边缘人理据、修改契约方的道德动机、重新阐释合作的意涵、增加无知之幕的厚度等方式,把罗尔斯的正义论扩展应用于人与动物的关系。作为与能力进路、关系进路和利益进路的动物正义论并驾齐驱的第四种动物正义论类型,契约主义的动物正义论在借鉴和吸收罗尔斯式动物正义论捍卫者之思想资源的基础上,通过两个重要的建构策略(消除罗尔斯契约论思想中的霍布斯式要素;凸显平等直觉理据的重要性),从契约主义的角度重构了罗尔斯式动物正义论,为人对动物负有的政治义务提供了独特的理据和视角。契约主义动物正义论的批评者认为:(1)认可人对动物的正义义务,将意味着动物拥有与人完全相同的道德权利,导致权利的泛滥;(2)将苦乐感受能力作为获得正义关怀的分界线是武断的;(3)动物正义论预设了“动物拥有道德地位”这一前提。契约主义动物正义论者认为,上述批评要么是不切题的,要么是基于对罗尔斯正义论的误解。

Rawlsian animal justice theorists extend Rawls' justice theory to the relationship between humans and animals by, such as, appealing to the marginal argument, modifying the moral motives of contract parties, reinterpreting the meaning of cooperation, and increasing the thickness of the veil of ignorance. As the fourth type of animal justice theory, which is parallel with the ability approach, relationship approach and interest approach, the contractarian animal justice theory, based on the ideological resources of the defenders of Rawlsian animal justice theory and two important construction strategies(eliminating the Hobbesian elements in Rawls' contract theory and highlighting the importance of the intuitive equality argument), reconstructs a Rawlian animal justice theory from the perspective of contractarianism, and provides a unique rationale and perspective for the political obligations of human beings to animals. Critics of the contractarian animal justice theory believe that:(1)recognizing human's obligation of justice to animals will mean that animals have exactly the same moral rights as humans, resulting in the proliferation of rights;(2)It is arbitrary to regard the capacity to feel pain and pleasure as the dividing line for obtaining justice;(3)The theory of animal justice presupposes the premise that “animals have moral status”. Contractarian animal justice theorists argue that the above criticisms are either irrelevant or based on a misunderstanding of Rawls' theory of justice.