动物权利——犹太人的观点

Ronen Pinkas
{"title":"动物权利——犹太人的观点","authors":"Ronen Pinkas","doi":"10.53100/bvnmxbhgbhgjb","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article raises the question why is it that, despite Jewish tradition devoting\n much thought to the status and treatment of animals and showing strict adherence to the\n notion of preventing their pain and suffering, ethical attitudes to animals are not\n dealt with systematically in the writings of Jewish philosophers and have not received\n sufficient attention in the context of moral monotheism. What has prevented the\n expansion of the golden rule: »Love your fellow as yourself: I am the LORD« (Lev 19,18)\n and »That which is hateful to you do not do to another« (BT Shabbat 31a:6; JT Nedarim\n 30b:1) to animals? Why is it that the moral responsibility for the fellow-man, the\n neighbor, or the other, has been understood as referring only to a human companion? Does\n the demand for absolute moral responsibility spoken from the face of the other, which\n Emmanuel Levinas emphasized in his ethics, not radiate from the face of the non-human\n other as well? Levinas’s ethics explicitly negates the principle of reciprocity and\n moral symmetry: The ›I‹ is committed to the other, regardless of the other’s attitude\n towards him. Does the affinity to the eternal Thou which Martin Buber also discovers in\n plants and animals not require a paradigmatic change in the attitude towards\n animals?","PeriodicalId":222541,"journal":{"name":"The Turn - Zeitschrift fuer islamische Philosophie, Theologie und\n Mystik","volume":"105 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Animal rights – Jewish perspectives\",\"authors\":\"Ronen Pinkas\",\"doi\":\"10.53100/bvnmxbhgbhgjb\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article raises the question why is it that, despite Jewish tradition devoting\\n much thought to the status and treatment of animals and showing strict adherence to the\\n notion of preventing their pain and suffering, ethical attitudes to animals are not\\n dealt with systematically in the writings of Jewish philosophers and have not received\\n sufficient attention in the context of moral monotheism. What has prevented the\\n expansion of the golden rule: »Love your fellow as yourself: I am the LORD« (Lev 19,18)\\n and »That which is hateful to you do not do to another« (BT Shabbat 31a:6; JT Nedarim\\n 30b:1) to animals? Why is it that the moral responsibility for the fellow-man, the\\n neighbor, or the other, has been understood as referring only to a human companion? Does\\n the demand for absolute moral responsibility spoken from the face of the other, which\\n Emmanuel Levinas emphasized in his ethics, not radiate from the face of the non-human\\n other as well? Levinas’s ethics explicitly negates the principle of reciprocity and\\n moral symmetry: The ›I‹ is committed to the other, regardless of the other’s attitude\\n towards him. Does the affinity to the eternal Thou which Martin Buber also discovers in\\n plants and animals not require a paradigmatic change in the attitude towards\\n animals?\",\"PeriodicalId\":222541,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Turn - Zeitschrift fuer islamische Philosophie, Theologie und\\n Mystik\",\"volume\":\"105 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Turn - Zeitschrift fuer islamische Philosophie, Theologie und\\n Mystik\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.53100/bvnmxbhgbhgjb\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Turn - Zeitschrift fuer islamische Philosophie, Theologie und\n Mystik","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.53100/bvnmxbhgbhgjb","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这篇文章提出了一个问题,为什么尽管犹太传统对动物的地位和待遇投入了很多思考,并严格遵守防止动物痛苦和折磨的概念,但在犹太哲学家的著作中,对动物的道德态度没有得到系统的处理,在道德一神论的背景下也没有得到足够的关注。是什么阻碍了黄金法则的扩展:“爱人如己:我是耶和华”(利未记19,18)和“你所憎恶的,不可行于人”(安息日31a:6;JT Nedarim 30b:1)动物?为什么对同胞、邻居或他人的道德责任被理解为只指人类同伴?伊曼纽尔·列维纳斯在他的伦理学中强调的,从他者的脸上说出的绝对道德责任的要求,难道不是从非人类的他者的脸上散发出来的吗?列维纳斯的伦理学明确地否定了互惠原则和道德对称:“我”致力于他者,不管他者对他的态度如何。马丁·布伯在植物和动物身上也发现了与永恒的“你”的亲缘关系,这难道不要求我们在对待动物的态度上发生典范性的改变吗?
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Animal rights – Jewish perspectives
This article raises the question why is it that, despite Jewish tradition devoting much thought to the status and treatment of animals and showing strict adherence to the notion of preventing their pain and suffering, ethical attitudes to animals are not dealt with systematically in the writings of Jewish philosophers and have not received sufficient attention in the context of moral monotheism. What has prevented the expansion of the golden rule: »Love your fellow as yourself: I am the LORD« (Lev 19,18) and »That which is hateful to you do not do to another« (BT Shabbat 31a:6; JT Nedarim 30b:1) to animals? Why is it that the moral responsibility for the fellow-man, the neighbor, or the other, has been understood as referring only to a human companion? Does the demand for absolute moral responsibility spoken from the face of the other, which Emmanuel Levinas emphasized in his ethics, not radiate from the face of the non-human other as well? Levinas’s ethics explicitly negates the principle of reciprocity and moral symmetry: The ›I‹ is committed to the other, regardless of the other’s attitude towards him. Does the affinity to the eternal Thou which Martin Buber also discovers in plants and animals not require a paradigmatic change in the attitude towards animals?
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信