Animal Liberation Peter Singer, 《動物解放》；《西頓動物記》Wild Animals I Have Known

蘋論：虐殺動物 禽獸不如

2016年11月04日

台灣虐殺動物的新聞無日無之，最新也是最令人髮指的是昨天本報頭版刊登的一個恨貓集團，訓練了一群惡狗，晚上放出來圍殺街貓，過程極為血腥殘暴，先是把貓從躲避處拖出，其他狗一湧而上，分別咬住貓頭、貓腳，車裂般撕扯，貓兒死前慘叫哀號，痛苦至極。街貓死後，狗主人再鳴哨收兵。

軍中頻傳虐殺狗

紀律森嚴的軍中也頻傳虐死動物的事件。海軍陸戰隊6月才爆發吊死流浪狗案，引起眾怒，國防部長親自兩度道歉；未料陸軍花東指揮部麾下兩位士兵用木棒毆打僅5個月大的小狗，不但用棍子壓住小狗脖子，還拿不明粉末強灌口鼻，導致小狗幾天後送醫不治死亡。不只是小兵，台灣大學不是有個僑生專門獵殺貓兒嗎？
根據動物保護組織義工汪盈利的研究，流浪犬成為社會問題最早是1965年，而流浪犬從寵物到垃圾是在1960年代到1970年代。都市棄犬來源的責任歸屬有三者：寵物繁殖業者、不適任的飼主與放任的政府機構。政府的解決方案在1970年代是全面撲殺，1980年代動物保護運動介入，人道主義首次積極反映這個現象，到1990年代《動保法》立法。政府的做法一直沒改變，還是依賴「全面撲殺」，只是手段從殘忍變安樂死。期待2017年起，公立收容所全面零安樂死。 

動物有權受尊重

動物倫理學家相信，人怎麼對待動物，就會怎麼對待人。殘忍對待動物的人，雖不一定會虐殺他人，但至少不會制止殺人。如果從虐殺動物的過程中感受到快感，那麼問題更嚴重。
彼得辛格在1975年出版了《動物解放》，正式提出動物倫理學。學者錢永祥認為該書「不僅為動物的命運爭取到道德的地位，也突破了西方道德思考傳統體質上的盲點。」他指出「動物倫理學的一個關鍵主題在於，動物的生命是不是足以指向某種具有應然意涵的價值，從而用尊重與關懷為標準，人類對待動物的方式，就有了對與不對可言。」動物有權利和人類共享生命倫理，因為人與動物的生命有太多相同之處，共同居住在這個地球，人類都是從動物身上認識自己的生命。因此，政府應該要更嚴格的執行《動保法》，以保證作為人類鏡子的動物得到人道的對待。
千萬年來，都是人類需要動物，動物從來不需要人類。 

~~~~
西頓動物故事集(共10本)，原文名稱：Wild Animals I Have Known，語言：繁體中文，ISBN：9789862751619，頁數：1440，出版社：明天國際， ...

【#吳明益 讀《西頓動物記》，與動物同感】http://bit.ly/2flD9wf

//西頓的作品帶着永恆的，人類想與動物共感、溝通的情緒。

他說對北方印第安人來說，狗是友伴，「愛我，就要愛我的狗。」他為一隻瀕死的松雞發言：「難道野生動物沒有精神或法律的權利？人類憑什麼對同是生靈的動物做這麼長久而可怕的蹂躪，只因這生物不用他的語言說話？」而他相信自然的力量是一種亙古不變的秩序，面對死亡並不帶着偽善的哀慟：「沒有野生動物是壽終正寢，他的生命遲早都會以悲劇告終，問題只在於他可以和敵人對抗多久。」

~~~~~2011.5.8

《動物解放》
著：（英）辛格
譯：孟祥森、錢永祥
出版：
台北:關懷生命協會 1996
北京: 光明日報出版社 ?
青島出版社 2004

辛格的《動物解放》初版於1975年。此後20多年來，先後被翻譯成1O多種文字在世界各國出版並暢銷不衰。臨近世紀末，這部被譽為“動物保護運動的聖 經”、“生命倫理學的經典之作”、”素食主義的宣言“的《動物解放》有了很好的中文譯本。辛格在書前《致中國讀者》一文中這樣說：“本書所討論的問題對於 全世界來說都具有重要意義，但如果一本書不能被地球上人口最多的國家的人所讀，那它也就稱不上具有世界性”。作為一名普通的中國讀者，我為能讀到《動物解 放》這樣一本可以促使人類自省的書而慶幸。

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Animal Liberation, often referred to as the "bible" of the animal rights movement.^[1]

Animal Liberation is a book by Australian philosopher Peter Singer, published in 1975.^[2] The book is widely considered within the animal liberation movement to be the founding philosophical statement of its ideas. Singer himself rejected the use of the theoretical framework of rights when it comes to human and nonhuman animals: he argued that the interests of animals should be considered because of their ability to feel suffering and that the idea of rights was not necessary in order to consider them. He introduced and popularized the term "speciesism" in the book, which was originally coined by Richard D. Ryder, to describe the exploitative treatment of animals.^[3]

Contents [hide] 1 Arguments 2 Reception 3 Editions 4 See also 5 References

[edit] Arguments

The central argument of the book is an expansion of the utilitarian idea that 'the greatest good for the greatest number' is the only measure of good or ethical behaviour. Singer argues that there is no reason not to apply this to other animals. Singer himself rejected the use of the theoretical framework of rights when it comes to human and nonhuman animals; he argued that the interests of animals should be considered because of their ability to feel suffering and that the idea of rights was not necessary in order to consider them.
Although Singer rejects rights as a moral ideal independent from his utilitarianism based on interests, he accepts rights as derived from utilitarian principles, particularly the principle of minimising suffering.^[4] Singer allows that animal rights are not the same as human rights, writing in Animal Liberation that "there are obviously important differences between human and other animals, and these differences must give rise to some differences in the rights that each have."^[5] He began his book by defending Mary Wollstonecraft's 18th-century critic Thomas Taylor, who argued that if Wollstonecraft's reasoning in defense of women's rights were correct, then "brutes" would have rights too. Taylor thought he had produced a reductio ad absurdum of Wollstonecraft's view; Singer regards it as a sound logical implication.
In Animal Liberation, Singer argues against what he calls speciesism: discrimination on the grounds that a being belongs to a certain species. He holds the interests of all beings capable of suffering to be worthy of equal consideration, and that giving lesser consideration to beings based on their species is no more justified than discrimination based on skin color. He argues that animals should have rights based on their ability to feel pain more than their intelligence. In particular, he argues that while animals show lower intelligence than the average human, many severely retarded humans show equally diminished, if not lower, mental capacity, and that some animals have displayed signs of intelligence (for example, primates learning elements of American sign language and other symbolic languages) sometimes on par with that of human children, and that therefore intelligence does not provide a basis for providing nonhuman animals any less consideration than such retarded humans. Singer does not specifically contend that we ought not use animals for food insofar as they are raised and killed in a way that actively avoids the inflicting of pain, but as such farms are uncommon, he concludes that the most practical solution is to adopt a vegetarian or vegan diet. Singer also condemns vivisection except where the benefit (in terms of improved medical treatment, etc.) outweighs the harm done to the animals used.^[6]

[edit] Reception

Since the publication of Animal Liberation, Singer has received a wide-range of philosophical challenges to his formulation of animal rights. In a lengthy debate in Slate Magazine, Richard Posner challenged that Singer failed to see the "radicalism of the ethical vision that powers [his] view on animals, an ethical vision that finds greater value in a healthy pig than in a profoundly retarded child, that commands inflicting a lesser pain on a human being to avert a greater pain to a dog, and that, provided only that a chimpanzee has 1 percent of the mental ability of a normal human being, would require the sacrifice of the human being to save 101 chimpanzees."^[7]
In addition, Martha Nussbaum has argued that the Capability Approach provides a more adequate foundation of justice than Utilitarianism can supply. Utilitarianism, Nussbaum argues, ignores adaptive preferences, elides the separateness of distinct persons, misidentifies valuable human/non-human emotions such as grief, and calculates according to "sum-rankings" rather than inviolable protection of intrinsic entitlements.^[8] Singer replied to this critique.^{[9][clarification needed]}
Gary L. Francione's theory of animal rights rejects Singer's utilitarian view and uses an abolitionist approach that is based on sentience alone, rather than on any particular characteristics like self-awareness.

[edit] Editions

There have been several editions of the book published over the years, each further chronicling the progress of the animal liberation movement. Most editions of the book contain a preface. The animal rights organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, since its foundation in 1980, has greatly supported the book.

[edit] See also

• Jeremy Bentham

[edit] References

1. ^ Singer, Peter (1995). Animal liberation. London: Pimlico. p. xvi. ISBN 978-0-7126-7444-7.
2. ^ Frum, David (2000). How We Got Here: The '70s. New York, New York: Basic Books. p. 274. ISBN 0465041957.
3. ^ Peter Singer, “A Utilitarian Defense of Animal Liberation,” in Environmental Ethics, ed. Louis Pojman (Stamford, CT: Wadsworth, 2001), 35."
4. ^ Compare his fellow utilitarian John Stuart Mill, whose defense of the rights of the individual in On Liberty (1859) is introduced with the qualification, "It is proper to state that I forego any advantage which could be derived to my argument from the idea of abstract right as a thing independent of utility".^{[improper synthesis?]}
5. ^ Op. cit., p. 2.
6. ^ Gareth Walsh, "Father of animal activism backs monkey testing", The Sunday Times, November 26, 2006.
7. ^ Animal Rights Slate, 2001.
8. ^ Nussbaum, Martha and Cass Sunstein, eds. Animal Rights. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. pp. 299–320.
9. ^ "A Response to Martha Nussbaum"