伊布 喵喵 杰尼龟和小拳石
Fluffy McFlufferson, Pussy Meowsalot, Turtle Turtleson, and Muffin head.
In 2014, Americans spent over $56 billion dollars
on their beloved pets.
But how can we reconcile this affinity
with the horrific ways in which animals are often treated?
Thinkers like Rene Descartes have argued that
since animal lack consciousness,
they’re essentially machines,
and thus do not have moral status.
A less extreme view is that
animals are conscious, but their consentience is so fleeting that
things don’t matter to them like they do to us.
But to Australian philosopher Peter Singer,
drawing moral boundaries based on species
characteristics is utterly arbitrary. In his book Animal Liberation, Singer argues that
我们怀有“物种偏见” 就是说 我们认为
we suffer from a form of “speciesism.” In other words, since there is a belief that
animals don’t share the level of consciousness that humans exhibit, they don’t deserve
to be given similar moral consideration.
Granted, it’s reasonable to suggest that animals and humans should not share the same rights —
the right to vote, for instance, would be wasted on a Pikachu. But is it not
also wasted on people who are incapable of making rational choices? Yet, we don’t consider
those individuals as altogether different from the rest of us.
Clearly, we are inconsistent with our application of speciesism.
To Singer, the principle of equality shouldn’t be based solely on consciousness or intelligence.
What’s most important is the capacity for a being to experience pain and suffering.
Recognizing animals’ capacity to suffer is as much a moral characteristic as recognizing our own.
According to at least one philosophical theory,
moral actions are those that increase pleasures and decrease pains.
Initially known as hedonism,
and later popularized by Jeremy Bentham as utilitarianism,
this philosophy holds that
the only intrinsically good thing is pleasure,
and the only intrinsically bad thing is pain.
因此 予以痛苦就是不好的 无论对方是人或动物
Hence, inflicting pain — whether it be against humans OR animals — is wrong. For Singer,
辛格认为 应根据具备痛苦承受能力这一特征 来衡量生物能否享有道德关怀
the capacity to suffer is the characteristic that qualifies any living thing to moral consideration,
because pain is something that both animals and humans alike try to avoid.
Think about it like this: a stone has no interest in avoiding being kicked, but a dog does —
and therefore, deserves moral treatment.
So dearest viewer, ask yourself:
would you still eat bacon if it came from Pikachus?
亲爱的观众们 大家好 这里是Disembodied British Voice
Hello, dears viewer, Disembodied British Voice here.
If you want to be notified when my next episode comes out,
be sure to click this giant, shameless subscribe button,
是的 就是它 你值得拥有
yes, the one right here, you can’t miss it.
Also, it’s the time for another vote
if you’d like to see the show broaden its horizons to sociological tissues
then wake up snow legs by clicking here
if not then throw a mastoball on youtube by clicking here
thanks for watching beloved viewer
伊布 喵喵 杰尼龟和小拳石