人类和其他动物的权利。

T. Regan
{"title":"人类和其他动物的权利。","authors":"T. Regan","doi":"10.4324/9781315244426-49","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Animals have occupied a precarious, often changing position in the major moral traditions of Western thought. Viewed as reincarnations of human souls in Eastern thought, they have been denied not only souls but awareness in others. And while some theories argue that we have duties directly to sentient animals, others maintain that all our duties involving these animals are indirect duties to humanity. The implications of these approaches for animal experimentation will be explained, as will the fundamental difference between the philosophy of animal rights, on the one hand, and these traditional approaches, on the other. That philosophy is categorically abolitionist in its implications concerning the harmful use of animals in science, whereas the traditional approaches are reformist at best.","PeriodicalId":7160,"journal":{"name":"Acta physiologica Scandinavica","volume":"1 1","pages":"33-40"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1986-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The rights of humans and other animals.\",\"authors\":\"T. Regan\",\"doi\":\"10.4324/9781315244426-49\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Animals have occupied a precarious, often changing position in the major moral traditions of Western thought. Viewed as reincarnations of human souls in Eastern thought, they have been denied not only souls but awareness in others. And while some theories argue that we have duties directly to sentient animals, others maintain that all our duties involving these animals are indirect duties to humanity. The implications of these approaches for animal experimentation will be explained, as will the fundamental difference between the philosophy of animal rights, on the one hand, and these traditional approaches, on the other. That philosophy is categorically abolitionist in its implications concerning the harmful use of animals in science, whereas the traditional approaches are reformist at best.\",\"PeriodicalId\":7160,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta physiologica Scandinavica\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"33-40\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1986-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta physiologica Scandinavica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315244426-49\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta physiologica Scandinavica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315244426-49","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

在西方思想的主要道德传统中,动物占据了一个不稳定的、经常变化的地位。在东方思想中,他们被视为人类灵魂的转世,他们不仅被剥夺了灵魂,而且被剥夺了他人的意识。虽然一些理论认为我们对有知觉的动物负有直接的责任,但另一些理论认为,我们对这些动物的所有责任都是对人类的间接责任。我们将解释这些动物实验方法的含义,以及动物权利哲学与这些传统方法之间的根本区别。这种哲学在涉及科学中有害使用动物的问题上是绝对废除主义的,而传统的方法充其量是改革主义的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The rights of humans and other animals.
Animals have occupied a precarious, often changing position in the major moral traditions of Western thought. Viewed as reincarnations of human souls in Eastern thought, they have been denied not only souls but awareness in others. And while some theories argue that we have duties directly to sentient animals, others maintain that all our duties involving these animals are indirect duties to humanity. The implications of these approaches for animal experimentation will be explained, as will the fundamental difference between the philosophy of animal rights, on the one hand, and these traditional approaches, on the other. That philosophy is categorically abolitionist in its implications concerning the harmful use of animals in science, whereas the traditional approaches are reformist at best.
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