Animal rights dispute

劉小鳳

【Abstract】In recent years， with the sustained and rapid development of social economy， people enjoy the conquering nature and the transformation of nature at the same time， accompanied by the serious consequences of extermination of ecological environment， There has been controversy over whether animals have power.

【Key words】animal rights argument origin

1. the concept of animal rights

Animal rights， or animal liberation， is initiated by the protection of animals are not human beings as a possession to treat the social movement. This is a non-human-oriented relatively radical social trend of thought， its purpose not only for the animals to be more merciful to the power， more advocate to enjoy the spirit of the basic “human” right， that animal should be regarded as As the basic life， not just as human life or property.

2. the origin of animal rights

The theory of animal rights has a long history. The basic ethical concepts of animals in ancient times originated from the simple non-anthropocentrism.

Enlightenment thinker Rousseau made a brief overview of the rights of animals in his book， “The Origin and Foundation of Human Inequality， ” that he said that humans evolved from animals， unlike other animals， lacking intelligence and Free， “but other animals are also perceived， and they should also enjoy the right of nature， and human beings are obliged to maintain this， and he specifically points out that” animals are free from abuse.

3. animal rights dispute.

（A） support the views of animal rights

Peter Singh first proposed the term “animal liberation” and argued that equal attention should be given to the same interests of the sensory animals. Equality of concern is equal to the equality of equal or equal rights， but by the ability or interests of the connotation of the standard to decide how to treat different individuals.

Tom Reagan is the representative of animal rights theory， its greatest contribution is to put forward the “l(fā)ife subject” concept. He made it clear that he was an animal rights defender who declared himself actively engaged in the animal rights movement. Including “the complete abolition of the traditional practices of animal application and scientific research， the complete abolition of commercial animal husbandry， the complete prohibition of commercial and recreational hunting and beast behavior.”

（B） the view against animal rights

Karl Cohen thinks we have the obligation to care that these animals may be able to experience the pain， but that does not mean that we can not eat animals， if the meat is our hobby. Karl pointed out that our concern for animals can not be used in medical research can not use animal conclusions， because in dealing with certain human diseases， the pursuit of the prescription and the reduction of human suffering have been basically with the use of animal experiments， which It is inevitable. He believes that the reason why people have power is based on the following three reasons：

（1） human power comes from the moral community.

（2） human power comes from human intuition.

（3） human rights are natural evolutionary development， is the development of human society to a certain stage of the product.

（C） I see the animal rights

I think the rights of animals is bound to be protected， but not general， but to have a choice. If the animal has the power to admit， what rights the animal has is unavoidable， is the right of the animal and the right of the human being in the content is not exactly the same？ I think all people will give a negative answer， such as animals can not have the right to reputation and honor， nor the right to marriages and property， because these rights for them simply meaningless， it can not be generally considered Animals have the power to say that animals have the right to equality with humans.

（4） to make the concept of the protection of animal moral obligations

The protection of animals should also be a moral obligation under the law， which is not to say that animals have legal rights to the people， the Austrian scholar Kelsen that “the law is someone else has a certain way to do some people the behavior of the facts， Does not naturally mean the latters right to such an act of the former， ‘but the law that every individual makes an obligation to do another way of doing the behavior of another person does not grant the latter to the former Legal rights”. Therefore， the right can cause the obligation， and the obligation does not cause the right， in the law stipulates that the obligation to protect the animal on the basis of human self-reflection and self is based on the protection of social public interests and created by the obligations. At present， we should strengthen animal welfare publicity and education， vigorously promote the relevant animal welfare knowledge， improve our citizens love animals， protect the environment awareness， enhance consumer rational consumption concept.

References：

[1]Rousseau “on the origin and foundation of human inequality”.Lvzhao translation.Kyushu Publishing House.2007.