动物的道德地位:道德地位的程度与利益取向

IF 0.2 0 PHILOSOPHY
Zorana Todorovic
{"title":"动物的道德地位:道德地位的程度与利益取向","authors":"Zorana Todorovic","doi":"10.2298/fid2102282t","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper addresses the issue of the moral status of non-human animals, or\n the question whether sentient animals are morally considerable. The\n arguments for and against the moral status of animals are discussed, above\n all the argument from marginal cases. It is argued that sentient animals\n have moral status based on their having interests in their experiential\n well-being, but that there are degrees of moral status. Two interest-based\n approaches are presented and discussed: DeGrazia?s view that sentient\n animals have interests in continuing to live, and that their interests\n should be granted moral weight; and McMahan?s TRIA which similarly\n postulates that animals have interests and that in a given situation we\n should compare the human and animal interests at stake. Finally, the paper\n concludes that the anthropocentric approach to animal ethics should be\n abandoned in favour of the biocentric ethics.","PeriodicalId":41902,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy and Society-Filozofija i Drustvo","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The moral status of animals: Degrees of moral status and the interest-based approach\",\"authors\":\"Zorana Todorovic\",\"doi\":\"10.2298/fid2102282t\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper addresses the issue of the moral status of non-human animals, or\\n the question whether sentient animals are morally considerable. The\\n arguments for and against the moral status of animals are discussed, above\\n all the argument from marginal cases. It is argued that sentient animals\\n have moral status based on their having interests in their experiential\\n well-being, but that there are degrees of moral status. Two interest-based\\n approaches are presented and discussed: DeGrazia?s view that sentient\\n animals have interests in continuing to live, and that their interests\\n should be granted moral weight; and McMahan?s TRIA which similarly\\n postulates that animals have interests and that in a given situation we\\n should compare the human and animal interests at stake. Finally, the paper\\n concludes that the anthropocentric approach to animal ethics should be\\n abandoned in favour of the biocentric ethics.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41902,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philosophy and Society-Filozofija i Drustvo\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philosophy and Society-Filozofija i Drustvo\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2298/fid2102282t\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy and Society-Filozofija i Drustvo","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2298/fid2102282t","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这篇论文讨论了非人类动物的道德地位问题,或者是有知觉的动物在道德上是否相当重要的问题。讨论了支持和反对动物道德地位的论点,首先是来自边缘案例的论点。有人认为,有知觉的动物的道德地位是基于它们对自身体验幸福的兴趣,但道德地位是有程度之分的。提出并讨论了两种基于兴趣的方法:DeGrazia?S认为有知觉的动物有继续生存的利益,它们的利益应该被赋予道德的重要性;和麦克马汉吗?它同样假设动物有利益,并且在特定情况下,我们应该比较人类和动物的利害关系。最后,本文得出结论,应该放弃人类中心主义的动物伦理方法,转而支持生物中心主义的伦理方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The moral status of animals: Degrees of moral status and the interest-based approach
This paper addresses the issue of the moral status of non-human animals, or the question whether sentient animals are morally considerable. The arguments for and against the moral status of animals are discussed, above all the argument from marginal cases. It is argued that sentient animals have moral status based on their having interests in their experiential well-being, but that there are degrees of moral status. Two interest-based approaches are presented and discussed: DeGrazia?s view that sentient animals have interests in continuing to live, and that their interests should be granted moral weight; and McMahan?s TRIA which similarly postulates that animals have interests and that in a given situation we should compare the human and animal interests at stake. Finally, the paper concludes that the anthropocentric approach to animal ethics should be abandoned in favour of the biocentric ethics.
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
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
审稿时长
24 weeks
×
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