佛教动物伦理学的三个修正意义

Calvin Baker
{"title":"佛教动物伦理学的三个修正意义","authors":"Calvin Baker","doi":"10.1353/pew.0.a917041","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many accept the following three theses in animal ethics. First, although animal welfare should not be—or at least, need not be—our top moral priority, it is not a trivial one either. Second, if an animal is sentient, then it is a moral patient. Third, the extinction of an animal species is a tragic outcome that we have moral reason to prevent. I argue that a traditional (i.e., pre-modern) Buddhist perspective pushes against the first thesis and that a naturalized Buddhist perspective is inconsistent with the latter two.","PeriodicalId":506199,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy East and West","volume":" 16","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Three Revisionary Implications of Buddhist Animal Ethics\",\"authors\":\"Calvin Baker\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/pew.0.a917041\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Many accept the following three theses in animal ethics. First, although animal welfare should not be—or at least, need not be—our top moral priority, it is not a trivial one either. Second, if an animal is sentient, then it is a moral patient. Third, the extinction of an animal species is a tragic outcome that we have moral reason to prevent. I argue that a traditional (i.e., pre-modern) Buddhist perspective pushes against the first thesis and that a naturalized Buddhist perspective is inconsistent with the latter two.\",\"PeriodicalId\":506199,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philosophy East and West\",\"volume\":\" 16\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philosophy East and West\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/pew.0.a917041\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy East and West","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/pew.0.a917041","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

许多人都接受以下三个动物伦理学论点。首先,尽管动物福利不应成为--至少不必成为--我们的首要道德优先事项,但它也并非无足轻重。第二,如果动物有知觉,那么它就是道德上的病人。第三,动物物种的灭绝是一个悲剧性的结果,我们在道德上有理由加以阻止。我认为,传统(即前现代)佛教观点与第一个论点相悖,归化佛教观点与后两个论点不一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Three Revisionary Implications of Buddhist Animal Ethics
Many accept the following three theses in animal ethics. First, although animal welfare should not be—or at least, need not be—our top moral priority, it is not a trivial one either. Second, if an animal is sentient, then it is a moral patient. Third, the extinction of an animal species is a tragic outcome that we have moral reason to prevent. I argue that a traditional (i.e., pre-modern) Buddhist perspective pushes against the first thesis and that a naturalized Buddhist perspective is inconsistent with the latter two.
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信