《動物解放》的作者Peter Singer提到，人類對非人類動物的暴政所造成的苦難只有白種人對黑色人種所造成的苦難差堪比擬。這長久以來的暴政涉及人們對非人類動物的道德地位（moral status）之理解，在西方哲學史上，亞里斯多德認為非人類動物有感覺但缺乏理性，基督教哲學家如奧古斯丁與托馬斯阿奎那強化了亞氏的理解，動物缺乏理性證明了牠們被人類統治的合理性。到了現代哲學的笛卡爾在機械論宇宙觀之下將動物理解為不只缺乏理性更缺乏情感，甚至感受不到痛苦。雖然之後的哲學家如霍布斯、洛克、康德等認為動物擁有感覺與情感，但是否定牠們具備關鍵道德地位而必有的特徵，如自主性。之後雖然有的哲學家像是邊沁對批評人類對動物的暴行，採取效益原則把有感知能力的動物也納入考量，但西方哲學家大致上採用人類中心主義（anthropocentrism）的立場對待動物。相對而言，東方的宗教與思想傳統對動物比較友善，印度教與佛教提倡不傷害一切有生命的事物，素食與反對動物獻祭。儒家主張萬物一體，強調對遭受痛苦的生命要同情共感。本課程以Peter Singer的《動物解放》作為討論的開端，圍繞著「道德地位」、「平等考量」（equal consideration）、「平等對待」（equal treatment）、「權利」（right）、「利益」（interest）、能力（capability）、固有價值（inherent value）、道德能動者（moral agent）、道德容受者（moral patient）等概念。根據上述概念的討論，我們進而理解到動物是否擁有道德權利，若有，是哪一種意義的「道德權利」？是效益主義下的權利嗎？抑或動物因擁有固有價值而蘊含的道德權利？從這些問題的解答了解到人對動物有的是哪種義務。再進而回應現實世界中的問題，像是我們應該禁止賽狗嗎？我們應該吃素嗎？我們應該收養動物嗎？人類社會應該設置動物園嗎？我們可以狩獵嗎？從事動物研究是道德的嗎？本課程希望透過上述基本概念與問題的探討，讓修課同學除了對這些普遍的規範概念有基本掌握之外，還了解到各種相關的對待動物的哲學立場，最重要的是了解到從19世紀開始的保護動物運動，到了21世紀的動物解放與權利運動，個人的立場是什麼，並且如何為自己的立場進行哲學的辯護。總而言之，本課程目標有三：1.老師引導同學分析與理解相關規範概念；2.掌握相關對待動物的哲學立場；3.學會應用哲學技巧（基本技巧包括：批判式閱讀理解、重述論證）分析動物權利相關問題，並且為自己的立場辯護。為了達成上述目標，學生的課前準備以及出席上課就是必要的，課前準備包括花時間閱讀、註記、提問，出席課堂主要是聆聽與參與討論，將課前準備應用在討論上。Peter Singer, the author of "Animal Liberation" mentioned that the suffering caused by human tyranny over non-human animals is only comparable to the suffering caused by white people against black people. This long-standing tyranny involves people's understanding of the moral status of non-human animals. In the history of Western philosophy, Aristotle believed that non-human animals have feelings but lack reason. Christian philosophers such as Augustine and Thomas Aquinas Reinforcing Aristotle's understanding, animals' lack of rationality justifies their domination by humans. In modern philosophy, Descartes, under the mechanistic cosmology, understood animals as not only lacking rationality but also lacking emotion, and even unable to feel pain. Although later philosophers such as Hobbes, Locke, Kant, etc. believed that animals possess feelings and emotions, they denied that they possess the characteristics necessary for key moral status, such as autonomy. Later, although some philosophers, such as Bentham, criticized human beings' atrocities against animals and adopted the principle of benefit to take animals with sentience into consideration, Western philosophers generally adopted the stance of anthropocentrism (anthropocentrism) in treating animals. Relatively speaking, Eastern religious and ideological traditions are more friendly to animals. Hinduism and Buddhism advocate not harming all living things, and are vegetarian and opposed to animal sacrifice. Confucianism advocates the unity of all things and emphasizes sympathy for the suffering beings. This course starts the discussion with Peter Singer's "Animal Liberation", focusing on "moral status", "equal consideration" (equal consideration), "equal treatment" (equal treatment), "right" (right), and "interest" (interest), capability (capability), inherent value (inherent value), moral agent (moral agent), moral patient (moral patient) and other concepts. Based on the discussion of the above concepts, we further understand whether animals have moral rights, and if so, what kind of "moral rights" are they? Is it a right under utilitarianism? Or do animals have moral rights due to their inherent value? Learn from the answers to these questions what obligations humans have towards animals. And then respond to real-world questions, such as should we ban greyhound racing? Should we be vegetarian? Should we adopt animals? Should human society have zoos? Can we hunt? Is it ethical to conduct animal research? This course hopes that through the discussion of the above basic concepts and issues, students will not only have a basic grasp of these universal normative concepts, but also understand various related philosophical positions on treating animals. The most important thing is to understand that from the 19th century From the animal protection movement in the beginning to the animal liberation and rights movement in the 21st century, what is one's position and how to defend one's position philosophically. All in all, this course has three goals: 1. The teacher guides students to analyze and understand relevant normative concepts; 2. Master the relevant philosophical stance on treating animals; 3. Learn to apply philosophical skills (basic skills include: critical reading comprehension, restatement of arguments) analysis animal rights-related issues and defend their position. In order to achieve the above goals, students' pre-class preparation and attendance in class are necessary. Pre-class preparation includes spending time reading, taking notes, and asking questions. Class attendance mainly involves listening and participating in discussions, and applying pre-class preparations to discussions.
彼得·辛格，《動物解放》（30周年紀念版），出版社：中信出版社，2018。
湯姆‧雷根, 《動物權利研究》，出版社：北京大學出版社，2010。
瑪莎·C·努斯鮑姆，《正義的前沿》，出版社：中國人民大學出版社，2016。
瑪莎·C·努斯鮑姆，《為動物的正義：我們的集體責任》，出版社：中信出版社，2024。
威爾•金利卡, 蘇•唐納森，《動物公民：動物權利的政治哲學》，出版社：貓頭鷹
Christine M. Korsgaard, Fellow Creatures: Our Obligations to the Other Animals, Oxford: Oxford University Press (September 5, 2018)
Peter Singer, "Animal Liberation" (30th Anniversary Edition), Publisher: CITIC Press, 2018.
Tom Regan, "Animal Rights Research", Publisher: Peking University Press, 2010.
Martha C. Nussbaum, Frontiers of Justice, Publisher: Renmin University of China Press, 2016.
Martha C. Nussbaum, Justice for Animals: Our Collective Responsibility, Publisher: CITIC Press, 2024.
Will Kymlicka, Sue Donaldson, "Animal Citizenship: A Political Philosophy of Animal Rights", Publisher: Owl
Christine M. Korsgaard, Fellow Creatures: Our Obligations to the Other Animals, Oxford: Oxford University Press (September 5, 2018)
| 評分項目 Grading Method | 配分比例 Grading percentage | 說明 Description |
|---|---|---|
| 出席出席 Attend |
20 | 每出席一次一分，全勤20分。 |
| 課堂導讀與課後作業課堂導讀與課後作業 Class introduction and after-class homework |
20 | 每次課堂導讀與討論於課後上傳。 |
| 期中考期中考 midterm exam |
20 | 申論題 |
