• 検索結果がありません。

Today, animal abuse is regarded as evil, not only in Asian countries influenced by Buddhism, but also in most of the world. I use the term

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

シェア "Today, animal abuse is regarded as evil, not only in Asian countries influenced by Buddhism, but also in most of the world. I use the term"

Copied!
16
0
0

読み込み中.... (全文を見る)

全文

(1)

TakaFiyii

Abstract

A main purpose of this paper is to trace the roots of modem discussions about animal ethics. First, I sort out and survey major discussions about modern animal ethics. Next, I review the discussions about moral considerations for animals in eighteenth-century England which are probably thought of as templates of modern discussions about animal ethics. Additionally, I track back discussions in the seventeenth century, as a germ of discussions in eighteenth-century England, in the area of animal experiments, such as vivisection. Lastly, I speculate why these discussions in the seventeenth century spread out explosively in the following centuries in England.

Introduction

Today, animal abuse is regarded as evil, not only in Asian countries influenced by Buddhism, but also in most of the world. I use the term

"animal ethics" ' for such modern discussions about ethical consideration for animals. The origin of these discussions can be traced back to eighteenth century England. However, movements against animal vivisections may have geminated in seventeenth century France.

In this paper, after briefly surveying modern discussions on animal ethics, I will look at the discussions about ethical considerations for animals in eighteenth century England. Furthermore, I will go back to the background of the movements which may be the germ of those discussions in seventeenth century France. Finally, I will consider why seeds of French movements later flourished in England.

I . Modern Animal Ethics

This chapter is an overview of modern animal ethics. Phrases like "let s love animals!" are common in many animal ethics discussions. However, there are various opinions and motives. Each animal ethics discussion seems to have a wide variety of motives and objects of protection. Here,

87

(2)

I will try to outline those confusions.

The mainstream positions exhibited in the care for animals are shown in the following (table 1-1.)

Table 1-1. Modern animal ethics 1. Animal protection

2. Animal welfare 3. Animal liberation 4. Animal rights 5. Biocentrism

6. Biotic Community, Ecology, Land Ethic

more anthropocentric

*

more non-anthropocentric Hereafter, each position will be concretely described.

Animal protection

Animal protection is an idea that promotes the protection and love of animals as a social responsibility.2 This idea is derived from primitive passions of sympathizing with suffering or exploited animals. Advocators of this position have special feelings for animals in close connections to humans. There have been laws that protected animals, taking this position, for a long time (for example, cats in ancient Egypt and dogs in the Edo period during the reign of Tsunayoshi Tokugawa.)

Today, the idea of protection specific to animals can be lumped

together under "Animal welfare." The phrase "animal protection" is

shifting to protecting nature and also wild animals as well. However, this concept of nature protection takes on an anthropocentric stance because supporters of this concept protect the natural environment as public property and select objects and methods of protection for human survival.3 Animal welfare

World Society for Protection of Animals (WSPA) declares, "Animal welfare is defined by both the physical and psychological state of an animal and the conditions u* which it lives." * Thus, animal welfare is an improvement of the quality of life from an animal's point of view.

Nakano (1988) stated.that animal protection flourished and changed over

animal welfare. Protection is holding out a hand from superior to inferior,

whereas welfare is holding out a hand on an equal footing.5 It may have

been the way of thinking that changed to consider animals for protection

based on a scientific understanding of their habits and actions, instead of

merely loving animals emotionally.

(3)

Animal welfare aims to prevent the suffering or inhumane killing of animals as much as possible, and to allow the expression of natural behavioral patterns of each species in their rearing. The Five Freedoms listed in table 1-2 are international standards of animal welfare.

Table 1-2. The Five Freedoms (1) Freedom from hunger and thirst (2) Freedom from discomfort

(3) Freedom from pain, injury and disease (4) Freedom from fear and distress (5) Freedom to express normal behavior

From this concept, it can be appreciated that animal welfare specifically covers animals that have close relations with humans.

Proponents of animal welfare take the stance that defends animal experiments, even as they emphasize considerations for animals.

Imamura6 mentions that humans are greater than other species of animal, to be considered human property, and animal experiments are absolutely needed at this time to encourage the advancement of sciences for humankind. However, he does not agree with random experiments. They stress that scientists must not slight the welfare of animals. The reasoning is that good animal welfare provides scientifically good experimental results. This opinion is a common view among proponents of animal welfare. They also feel that it is desirable to shift to alternative experiments in the future, if possible, through the 3Rs proposed by English physiologists Russell and Burch in 1959.

Table 1-3. 3Rs7 Replacement

Reduction

Refinement

Animal rights

This discussion originated in an attempt to extend the rights of humans to animals. In this argument,8 animals are supposed as beings, not just mere objects, with independent inherent values and equal moral rights and status.

Supporters of animal rights assert that human beings are under direct

(4)

obligations to be kind to animals and not to treat animals cruelly. The applicable scope of rights varies slightly depending on researchers. Some of them limit the coverage to the mammalian class only, as with Tom Regan. According to Regan, the aims of animal right's movements include the overall abolition of animal exploitation in science (e.g. animal experiments), abolishment of commercial animal husbandry, and total abolition of hunting as a sport or for commercial purposes. For proponents of animal rights, animals are beings that have non-reducible and unassailable values, not just utilities for the interest of others.

Animal liberation

Animal liberation is an argument proposed from utilitarian views by Peter Singer. Singer mentions that a person (beings that have reason and self-consciousness)9.has a right to life, and a sentient being has a right to equal consideration of interests. He sets the feelings of pain and pleasure as an index of moral consideration based on the fact that all vertebrate animals have similar nervous systems. Therefore, invertebrates and plants are excluded from this moral consideration. According to Singer, animals are divided into three categories.

Table 1-4. ■ Animal classification by Singer

) Person---e.g. anthropoid apes, dolphins, whales, humans.

* Beings with reason and self-consciousness.

* Perceive themselves as unique substances with a past and a future.

• They have desires to stay alive.

• Therefore, person can have a right to life.

) Sentient beings (but not person)

"*e.g. dogs, cats, pigs, seals, bears, cattle, sheep.

• They have no self-consciousness.

• Therefore, they have no rights to life. They are regarded as substitutable beings.

• However, they have rights to equal consideration.

(3) Insentient beings- -e.g. mollusks, insects.

• They have no sensation.

* Therefore, they are outside the domain of equal consideration.

From a perspective of rigid animal rights, animal liberation may not be

sufficient enough because it does not place value in the individual but

merely in their senses.10 From land ethic's view, mentioned later, there is

(5)

a criticism that humans ought to have considerations for inferior animals, plants, and the world's ecological system. "

Biotic community, Ecology, Environmental ethics, Land ethics Biotic community is a concept based on holistic-communitarianism proposed by J. B. Callicott.12 Callicott attempts to rebuild Aldo Leopold's Land ethic as a holistic environmental ethic.

Land ethic focuses on land, which is a biotic community, and determines the ethical quality of each existence from considerations about their effects. This position adopts an ecological view that focuses on interactions among various existences and sees the world as one. An ultimate scale for moral determination is set whether or not it will contribute to the existences or the interests of the biotic community.

Advocates of Land ethics are mainly interested in the land, with just incidental interests for each component of the biotic community.

In a position which places value on the Biological community inherited from Land ethics, there is no discussion with special interests in animals, but animal lives are constantly controlled for the sake of balancing the ecosystem. Endangered species are regarded as objects of protection.

However, beings that are breeding too much and upsetting the balance of the ecosystem are regarded as targets of extermination.

Regan, an animal rights proponent, is against the biotic community because, though it has an aspect of sentimentalism, it is an example of

"environmental fascism" l3 that sloughs rights off individuals.

Biocentrism

Biocentrism was established by Paul W. Taylor. According to Taylor's version", the beliefs that form the core of biocentrism are the following:

(a) The belief that humans are members of the Earth's Community of Life in the same sense and on the same terms in which other living things are members of that Community.

(b) The belief that the human species, along with all other species, are integral elements in a system of interdependence such that the survival of each living thing, as well as its chances of faring well or poorly, is determined not only by the physical

conditions of its environment but also by its relations to other living things.

(c) The belief that all organisms are teleological centers of life in

the sense that each is a unique individual pursuing its own

(6)

good in its own way.

(d) The belief that humans are not inherently superior to other living things.

Taylor mentioned that the belief system renders the respect for nature intelligible and provides its justification only as a biocentric point of view.

The moral consideration, from this outlook, is based on human specificity of moral thinking or judgments. Therefore, it depends on the fundamental differences between humans and other species.

On one hand, this position may not be perfect non-anthropocentrism insofar as respecting the welfare of all living things including humans, based on human thinking and determination, but, on the other hand, this position does not limit respectable objects to humans only. Biocentrism views all living things as equal without placing any emphasis on humans or non-humans.15 Humans must serve their lives and others on the assumption that it is their obligation to consider other beings because of their ability to think and judge.

Thus far, I have analyzed the major discussions about modern animal ethics. Most of these ideas originated from eighteenth century England.

In the following section, I will trace the roots of these discussions from the point of view of eighteenth century England.

II . The Moral Consideration For Animals In Eighteenth Century England

In England, under the House of Tudor and House of Stuart, there was a stereotype that the world was made for humans, and other living beings must obey human desires and needs. Furthermore, Christianity was exploited for the justification of this belief. Based on a misinterpretation of the Old Testament, especially Genesis, the anthropocentric spirit that God created all natural objects for human interests and pleasure, and that humans have dominion over them, was wide spread.16

In modern England, there was customary Christian anthropocentrism

even though some people criticized it. In discussions about moral

considerations for animals in seventeenth and eighteenth century England,

backed by social, cultural, economic, industrial and academic changes

and developments, reconsidering and criticizing anthropocentrism based

on the Cartesian animal-mechanistic theory (1630) and/or Christianity,

(7)

became a main issue. However, people did not lose faith in Christianity and absolute trust in God's design has continued to the present The bud of non-anthropocentrism certainly appeared in the eighteenth century, but it was not the only standard principle. The confrontation between anthropocentrism and non-anthropocentrism has been repeated over and over and can be seen even in modern discussions.

England was a class-structured society and the initial pioneers who discussed the moral consideration for animals in the eighteenth century belonged to the educated middle class. The discussions, analyzed here, were argued by those intellectuals. This chapter mostly refers to essays in an anthology edited by A. Garrett, Animal Rights and Souls in the Eighteenth Century (Boston: Thoemmes Press, 2000) ". In the introduction, Garrett quoted a part of Bentham's footnotes in The Principles ofMorals and Legislation.

The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny'

The question is not, Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? w

Garrett mentions that "Bentham's argument, although startling, did not emerge ex nihUo"" and suggests that a number of British philosophers before him had argued for the humane treatment of animals. From the discussions of moral considerations included in this anthology and arguments about animals by some contemporary philosophers who influenced each other, the following three key terms characterize the moral attitudes towards animals; theology, traits of animals and non theology. The components of each are listed and explained below;-

Attitudes toward animals based on theology Emphasis on the existence of God

Chain of being

Interests in oriental religions

Attitudes toward animals based on traits of animals Language

Reason

Pain and pleasure (similar to utilitarianism)

The theory of "anthropoid apes equal to humans"

(8)

Affirmation of animal spirits

Attitudes toward animals not based on theology Love for animals/love between humans and animals (similar to the perspectives of animal protection) Interpretation based on experiences

(similar to the perspectives of animal welfare)

Chain of being

Chain of being is a kind of scale that encompasses the inanimate being, plants, animals, humans and the genus of angels. The inanimate beings are seated at the inferior end of this scale, and angels are seated at the superior end. Adjacent ranks slightly overlap each other. This concept also appears in essays by Pope, Primatt and Jenyns. The idea of Leibniz' monad20 was also similar to this concept. Though Platonic or Aristotelian schools originally formulated this concept, it was widely accepted in the eighteenth century.

As a result of accepting this concept, people's views started to change from an old paradigm that divides humans and animals completely to a new one that regards inanimate beings, plants, animals and humans as a series of existences in one system. However, it still graded objects within the system, so the idea that there are superior and inferior classes within human society, was portrayed, beyond the intentions of Jenyns or Leibniz.

This idea could have contributed to racism from the nineteen century on.

Interests in oriental religions

In Europe, Hinduism had formerly achieved prominence in bringing cumulative evils on humankind. However, not only puzzlement?1 but also adoration or praise for the Orient began to arise from colonial policies.

Consequently, the East became more familiar than ever before in the eighteenth century.22 Oswald, a Hindu, introduced and applauded thoughts and behaviors of Hinduism, especially Indian Hindu.23 Bentham also commended Muslim and Hindu for their consideration for animals. M This tendency may have lead to cults of the Orient in modern ideology like "deep ecology." They may have utilized the Oriental thinking as reflections of themselves.

The theory of "anthropoid apes equal to humans"

Rousseau considered that anthropoids such as orangutans or gorillas

were humans from the earliest times.25 Lord Monboddo who was

(9)

influenced by Rousseau also regarded anthropoids as beings that have morality and sociality equal to humans.

These discussions were based on novel information brought by those who had searched wild nature looking for natural resources to meet the demands of the industrial revolution. "Anthropoids equal to humans",

"anthropoids are somewhat same as humans" or "not much difference between anthropoids, humans and animals", were some of the phrases used in those discussions but, in any case, such discussions which identified humans with anthropoids, which were originally regard as mere animals, might have been shocking.

Based on the statements thus far described, the relationship between discussions about animals in the eighteenth century and those in modem discussions are classified as follows;-

Common elements between discussions of the eighteenth century and modern discussions

Discussions about traits of animals such as reason, language and pain-pleasure sensation

Discussions based on the love of animals by humans Discussions about interpretations and moral judgments

based on experience

Reference to the Oriental thoughts (recognized by deep ecology)

Templates of modern discussions, found in the discussions of the eighteenth century

Discussions emphasizing the pain-pleasure sensation (a template of Singer s utilitarianism)

Discussions based on the love of humans (a template of modern animal protection) Discussions based on experience

(a template of modern animal welfare)

Elements, in the discussions of the eighteenth century, missing in modern discussions

Utilization of religion

Reconstructing the flame of companions Emphasis on the value of love

Application of arts such as literature, painting, music, and so on

Discussions in eighteenth century England might be templates of

(10)

modern discussions of animal ethics. ' However, the pioneers who found the new concept, moral considerations for animals, were the French, such as Father Bougeant who was one of the original authors of the anthology edited by Garrett.

1. Ethics Of Animal Experiments In Seventeenth Century England And France

First, I will trace the course of the history of vivisection and transfusion experiments in the seventeenth century. According to Guerrini, vivisection was being performed from around 450 BC and became fashionable in seventeenth century Europe. This trend peaked in the 1660s with many live animal experiments. These public experiments diminished in the 1670s. Guerrini suggests several reasons for this decline. Public vivisection imposed technical limits of time and space, and moreover, interest declined in the use of vivisection as a technique, perhaps on ethical grounds but also because of changes in the definition of significant knowledge.

Guerrini mentions Robert Boyle and Robert Hooke as leaders in scientific vivisectionists at the time. Both had done numerous animal experiments and killed a lot of animals. Boyle had been aware of the existence of animal sensation. However, he linked the notion to antagonists of animal experiments. He defended his acts on the grounds of stewardship. Boyle who was an ailurophile seemed heartbroken when he experimented with cats, however he justified the suffering of animals through experiments as preferable to human suffering, for the advance of scientific knowledge.

On the other hand, Hooke, did not find happiness in vivisections. He complained bitterly to Boyle that at least vivisectionists should use opiates for their subjects. Hooke's delicacy may not have set well with most of the other vivisectionists.

Another famous vivisectionist, Thomas Willis, also thought that beasts

were conscious but not rational, so he continued to vivisect. Guerrini also

mentioned other people who have aversions to vivisection. The naturalist

John Ray attacked the animal-machine theory and maintained that

animals showed consciousness and attention, and argued that the

abhorrence which most people feel towards animal suffering was itself

proof that the suffering was real. John Evelyn criticized, not only

vivisection, but also hunting as a sport The Cambridge Platonist and

(11)

Anglican clergyman Henry More argued that nature was not made for humans alone. According to Guerrini, some these opponents of the cruel vivisections took their stances on the basis of sentiment or aesthetics rather than on moral grounds. Expressions of their feelings remained largely on a personal and private level.

Also, according to Guerrini, transfusion experiments were attempted for the first time in the late 1660s. Not only animal-to-animal blood transfusions, but also animal-to-human transfusions were undertaken.

Mentally ill patients were sought for the trials as recipients. Animal-to- human blood transfusions were first tried in Paris in June of 1667. On 23 November 1667, English natural philosophers forestalled by French scientists rushed to perform a transfusion experiment Human transfusion came to an end when a patient of Denis died in 1668. Unlike in France, English natural philosophers continued human transfusion trials for more than a year.

The lack of success in the French transfusion experiments had an important consequence for general animal experiments. Not only did transfusion experiments halt immediately, but the number of vivisections also soon declined.

Singer26 maintains that the Descartes' animal-machine theory was the basis for the justification Of animal vivisections. However, English vivisectionists in later seventeenth century were not using that theory for the justification. Descartes' animal-machine theory applied to, not only non-human animals, but humans also. (Radical mechanist La Mettrie argued that man too was a mere machine.) Most of the vivisectionists were aware of animal sensations but still continued animal experiments.

Their acts were based on the concept of Christian stewardship instead of Descartes' theory. The term "animal-machine theory" might have been used to criticize vivisection in the later part of the eighteenth century by

opponents.

According to Guerrini, anti-vivisection movements began in late seventeenth century France and spread to England in the eighteenth

century.

Epilogue

Anti-vivisection movements which arose in France exploded in England and later developed into the discussions of animal ethics. Now, England has become a world leader in animal ethics.

Lastly, I will attempt to consider why these discussions were a burning

(12)

issue in England. Descartes' animal-machine theory which was the mainstream theory of ideas in France was not so popular in England.27 In England, there had been systematic thinking based on British empiricism independent of continental philosophy. First, Francis Bacon can be cited as a pioneer of British empiricism and modern science. Another great top- billed thinker in seventeenth century England was John Locke. He had a similar perspective to Bacon that stood in direct opposition to Descartes' rationalism, however, he did not declare humans' superiority to animals like Bacon.

In AN ESSAY CONCERNING HUMAN UNDERSTANDING, Locke descried that he believed in the existence of sensation and aesthesia in animals.28 He also mentioned that God's wisdom and affection clearly affected all parts of this huge universal system and all creations in each class of the system. This idea comes from the concept of"chain of being"

described above. Additionally, Locke insinuated on the possibility of the existence of immaterial spirits in animals.29

Under the foundations of Locke, many English philosophers of the

eighteenth century might have championed nature and revoked

Descartes' philosophy. I suppose that the discussion of moral

considerations for animals arose as part of such a philosophical stream

and may arrive at, and influence, the modern discussions of animal ethics.

(13)

Appendix*

Animal Bights and Souls in the Eighteenth Century ' CONTENTS

Volume 1. ANIMAL LANGUAGE, ANIMAL PASSIONS AND ANIMAL MORALS A Philosophical Amusement upon the Language ofBeasts (1739)

Guillaume Hyacinthe Bougeant Free Thoughts upon the Brute-Ovation: or. An Examination of Father Bou&ant? Phtbscpftical Amusement, Ac.JnTwo Letters to a Lady. (1742-3)

John Hildrop ChapterXVI Of the society ofAnimals

ChapterXVIL Ofthe Docility ofAnimals ChapterXVin. Of the Characters ofAnimals Chapter XIX. Of the Principle ofImitation

Chapter XXIL Of the Progressive Scale or Chain of Beings in the Universe from The PktlosophyofNatural History, 2 vols. (1790-99) Vol.1, pp.414-72, 520-26

"William Smdlte Volnme2. AN ESSAY ON THE FUTURE LIFE OF BRUTES

Introduced with Observations upon Evil, its Nature and Origin, 2 vols. In 1 (1768) Richard Dean Volumes.

A DISSERTATION ON THE DUTY OF MERCY AND SIN OF CRUELTY TO BRUTE ANIMALS (1776) Humphry Primatt Volnme4. THE CHAIN OF BEING AND THE CRY OF NATURE

'Against Barbarity to Animals' in Quantum, no.61 (21 May 1713), pp.260-67

Alexander Pope 'On the Chain ofUniversal Being' and 'On Cruelty to Inferior Animals'

in Disquisitions on Several Subjects (1782), in Works, A vols. (1790), vol.3, pp. 179-95

SoameJenyns 'On Natural Evils' and 'On Moral Evil'

in A Free Enquiryinto the Ubtwv and Oign ofEvil (1757Xpp.45-120 SoameJenyns Review of Soame Jenyns, A Free Enquiry into the Mature and Origin of Evil (1757),

la The Works ofSamuel Johnson, 11 vols. (1825), vol. 6, pp.47-76 Samuel Johnson The Cry ofNature; or, an Appeal to Mercy and to Justice, on behalf ofthe Persecuted Adraals

(1791) John Oswald Volumes. AN ESSAY ON HUMANITY TO ANIMALS (1798) Thomas Young Volnmo6. LORD MONBODDO, ORANGUTANS AND THE ORIGINS OF HUMAN NATURE Introduction and Chapter 1 -6 in OFthe Orign and Progress qfLanguage, 6vols., 2"1 ed. (1774)

Vol.1. Book II, pp.207-367 Lames Burnett, Lord Monboddo

"This table was made by FUJII.

(14)

Footnotes

1 Often times, "animal ethics"is used to mean "ethics of animal experiment"or "ethics for experimental animals." However, animal ethics here means "Philosophical Discussion of the Moral Status of Nonhuman Animals." (See http://animalethics.

blofispot.com/.) Additionally, animal ethics is often regarded as a part of environmental ethics. I think that it is unreasonable to treat animals a mere part of natural environment because they are alive as humans are. In course of time, animal ethics may become a field of ethics combining environmental ethics and bioethics.

Therefore, the category will change by discussions there. Ultimately, there is a possibility to lead the category to a framework as a biocentric-ethics with no trivial segments.

2 Nakano (1988) pp.17-25 3 Imamura (2000)

4 http://www.wspa-internatJonal.org/ WSPA web site (2007/12/10, browsed.) 5 Nakano et al. (1988) pp.17-25

6 Imamura (2000) p.U pp.9-10,

Imamura s web site (2000-2007) http://www4.ocn.ne.ip/~animals/pagedown.html 7 "Remembering (activities, either sacred or secular, that can memorialize and

acknowledge the animals)" following Japanese memorial services for animals has been propounded as the fourth R (Iliff (2002)). Others are proposing to add

"Responsibility" as a fourth R.

8 Regan (1983)

9 Singer (1993) chapter 4 What's Wrong with Killing?

10 Regan (1983) HCallicott(1995) 12 Callicott (1995)

13 Regan (1983) chapter 9.4 14 Taylor (1986) pp.99-100 15 Kito (1995)

16 Thomas (1987) Chapterl-1, Singer (1973) Chapter 5 Mans Dominion, Passmore (1974)

17 Garrett edited this anthology to present some of the most interesting arguments about the humane treatments of animals, stretching from the early eighteenth century up to the turn of the nineteenth century, and to give a somewhat broader context for these discussions.

18 Bentham, J. (1789) Chapter XVE. Sectionl-1. pp.310-311 19 Garrett (2000) p.vii

20 Leibniz (1714) 21 Thomas (1987)

22 Thomas (1987), Singer (1973) 23 Oswald, J. (1791) pp.1-2, p.9

24 Bentham, J. (1789) Chapter XVII. Sectionl-1. p.310

25 Rousseau Discourse on the Origin ofInequality, footnote no. 10 pp.81-86.

26 Singer (1973)

(15)

27 Thomas (1987)

28 Locke (1690) Book H. Chapter 9-11.

29 Locke (1690) Book H Chapter 27-12.

References

Bentham, J. (1789). The Principles ofMorals and Legislation. London: Printed for T.

Payne (Republished 1988. New York. Prometheus Books.)

Callicott, J. B. (1983) Animal Liberation: A Triangular Affair, in Ethics and the Environment, eds. By Donald Scherer and Thomas Attig, pp.54-67, 72. Prentice- Hall, inc. mtm im

Descartes, R. (2003) Discourse on method and Meditations. Translated by Elizabeth S. Haldane and G. R. T. Ross. New York: Dover Publications, Inc. (Original work published in 1637,1641)

* Father Bougeant, G. EL (1739). Philosophical Amusement upon the Language of

Beasts. London: Printed for T. Cooper. (Original work published in 1737.) Garrett, A. (2000). Introduction. In A. Garrett (ed.), Animal Rights and Souls in the

Eighteenth Century. Boston: Thoemmes Press.

Hume, D. (2003). A TREATISE OF HUMAN NATURE. New York: DOVER PUBLICATIONS, INC. (first published in 1769-70.) TAIiifc (—) B—j&&t£

*#I&/tIR ^jfiXlt £$&]£ 1951.

*Hildrop, J. (1742-1743). Free Thoughts upon the Brute-Creation: or, An

Examination of Father Bougeant' s Philosophical Amusement, &c. In Two Letters to a Lady. London.

Eiff, S. A. (2002). Remembering the Animals. EAR journal. 43. 38-47.

Imamura, E. (2000). Hesomagari jui-san no doubutsu fukushi ron. (Discourse of animal welfare by a veterinarian having a twisted mind.) (in Japanese.))

a Jenys, S. (1782). On the Chain of Universal Being. In Disquisitions on Several

Subjects. London: Printed for J. Dodsley.

H Jenys, S. (1790). On Cruelty to Inferior Animals. In Works, 4 vols. (Vol.3). London:

Printed for T. Cadell.

B Jenys, S. (1757). On Moral Evils. In A Free Enquiry into the Nature and Origin of

Evil. London: Printed for R. and J. Dodsley.

H Jenys, S. (1757). On Natural Evils. In A Free Enquiry into the Nature and Origin of

Evil London: Printed for R. and J. Dodsley.

Kito, S. (1995). An commentary on chapter 1. Environment and ethics, in Kankyou shisou no keifu. (History of thoughts of environment.) (in Japanese.) (

pp.8-20).

Leibniz, G. W. (1998) Monadologie. Germany: Philipp Reclam jun. GmbH & Co.

(first published in 1720.) Discourse on Mtaphysics and The Monadology. Translated

(16)

by Gerge R. Montgomery. Mineola, New York: Dover Publications, Inc. 2005.

Locke, J. (1690) AN ESSAY CONCERNING HUMAN UNDERSTANDING, from Past Masters; British Philosophy 1600-1900. (CD-ROM.) InteLex Corporation.

ra Lord Monboddo, Burnett, J. (1774). Introduction and Chapter 1-6 In Ofthe Origin

and Progress ofLanguage, 6 vols., 2nd ed.

Nakano, K. (ed.) (1988) Jikken doubutsu nyumon. (Primer of experimental animals.) (in Japanese.) 4>^M*l&fl£ mW&AP^—#J&Tffi&&3l&£*T9 AOifcJfr

J )\m®E

a Oswald, J. (1791). The Cry ofNature; or, an Appeal to Mercy and to Justice, on

Behalfof the Persecuted Animals. London: Printed for J. Johnson.

Passmore, J. (1974) MANS RESPONSIBILITY FOR NATURE. New York: Charles Scribner'sSons. t&mzMt3A®G)I5£J HJ&gftiR £&Slft3I# £&

®B 1979.

Regan, T. (1983) THE CASE FOR ANIMAL RIGHTS. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University of California press.

Rousseau, J. J. (1992) Discourse on the Origin ofInequality. Translated by Donald A.

Cress. US: Hackett Publishing Company, (first published in 1755.) fAH^HF^®

Singer, P. (1973). Animal Liberation. New York.

Singer, P. (1993). Practical Ethics second edition. New York: Cambridge University

Press.

Taylor, P.W. (1986) RESPECT FOR NATURE A Theory ofEnvimnmental Ethics. UK:

Princeton University Press.

Thomas, K. (1987) MAN AND NATURAL WORLD. England: Penguin Books, (first published by Allen Lane 1983.) TAM t S $#—jftft-T <? U 3IC £ (t« g &

Essays by authors with "asterisks are included in the anthology edited

by Garrett (2000) in the forms of photo engraving.

Table 1-2. The Five Freedoms (1) Freedom from hunger and thirst (2) Freedom from discomfort
Table 1-4. ■ Animal classification by Singer

参照

関連したドキュメント

The use of the non- conventional combinatorial baffles not only remarkably reduces the sloshing amplitude and dynamic impact pressures acting on the tank wall but also shifts the

An easy-to-use procedure is presented for improving the ε-constraint method for computing the efficient frontier of the portfolio selection problem endowed with additional cardinality

By an inverse problem we mean the problem of parameter identification, that means we try to determine some of the unknown values of the model parameters according to measurements in

Related to this, we examine the modular theory for positive projections from a von Neumann algebra onto a Jordan image of another von Neumann alge- bra, and use such projections

The linearized parabolic problem is treated using maximal regular- ity in analytic semigroup theory, higher order elliptic a priori estimates and simultaneous continuity in

Then it follows immediately from a suitable version of “Hensel’s Lemma” [cf., e.g., the argument of [4], Lemma 2.1] that S may be obtained, as the notation suggests, as the m A

Based on sequential numerical results [28], Klawonn and Pavarino showed that the number of GMRES [39] iterations for the two-level additive Schwarz methods for symmetric

As just mentioned, the method used for recognizing circulant graphs is based on the notions of coherent configurations and Schur rings generated by graphs and on the in-