动物福利与动物保护.

动物福利与动物保护蒋志刚中国科学院动物研究所(1)动物福利(2)动物权利(3)动物意识(4)伦理的演化(5)动物的保护提纲问题的由来：人与动物的关系及动物法律地位如何对待动物是一个分歧很大、争论不休的话题。目前的分歧来自生物伦理与对动物的法律地位的分歧。456AristotleAltemps7AristotleAltemps亚里士多德.阿尔腾普斯arguedthatanimalslackedreason(logos),andplacedhumansatthetopofthenaturalworld.8RenéDescartes勒内·笛卡儿（1596-1650）Animalswerenotconsciousandbehavedasautomatons.JeremyBentham杰里米·边沁（1748–1832）Britishphilosopher杰里米·边沁哲学的基本公理‘对与错的测度是绝大多数获得了最大的幸福’。fundamentalaxiomofhisphilosophytheprinciplethatitisthegreatesthappinessofthegreatestnumberthatisthemeasureofrightandwrong∑PeterSinger（1946-）Thecentralargumentofhisideaisanexpansionoftheutilitarianidea（功利思想）thatthegreatestgoodofthegreatestnumberistheonlymeasureofgoodorethicalbehaviour.Singerbelievesthatthereisnoreasonnottoapplythisprincipletootheranimals,arguingthattheboundarybetweenhumanandanimaliscompletelyarbitrary.辛格1975年出版了AnimalLiberation一书，提出了‘物种歧视(speciesism)”的概念。这本书1990年、2002年,2009年多次再版，成为动物解放运动的理论基础。辛格认为动物具有感受痛苦的经历，因此必须考虑动物的利益。PeterSinger12意大利哲学家，因为主张将人类权利延伸到类人猿而闻名。著作有《动物问题：为什么非人动物应有人类权利》1988-1998年任Etica&Animali主编Howmuchdoanimalsmatter--morally?Canwekeepconsideringthemassecondclassbeings,tobeusedmerelyforourbenefit?Or,shouldweofferthemsomeformofmoralegalitarianism?Cavalieridiscoversthatitsverylogicextendstononhumananimalsasbeingswhoareowedbasicmoralandlegalrightsandthat,asaresult,humanrightsarenothumanafterall.类人猿项目（TheGreatApeProject(GAP)1993年,在PaolaCavalieri和PeterSinger的倡导下，类人猿项目（TheGreatApeProject(GAP)成立,要求联合国宣告类人猿的基本法定权利。伦理已经影响了现实，一个突出的例子是欧盟和美国禁止使用实验用灵长类、国际航空公司停止运输灵长类、动物实验开始转移到其他国家。14GaryFrancione(1954-)ProfessoroflawandphilosophyatRutgersSchoolofLaw-Newark,isaleadingabolitionistwriter,arguingthatanimalsneedonlyoneright,therightnottobeowned.15TomRegan（1938-）Animalwelfaremovementfornotgoingfarenoughtoprotectanimals'interests.法官RichardPosnerPosner(2001)指出“基于道德直觉，人类偏爱他自己。如果一只狗威胁了一个婴儿，尽管要制止这条狗伤害婴儿，狗将会受到比婴儿可能遭受到的痛苦更多。我们将拯救婴儿，因为狗将会受到比婴儿可能遭受到的痛苦更多而放过那条狗将是荒谬的。”牛津大学教授ColinBlakemore反对赋予非人灵长类权利，他认为当出现仅威胁人与猩猩的新型流行病时，必须用猩猩作为实验动物。科学家担心动物权利主义者从反对使用大猩猩、黑猩猩作为实验动物开始，逐步限制使用灵长类实验动物，一步步走向极端，最终走向全面禁止实验动物研究（NatureMedicineEditorial.2008）。哲学家RogerScruton反对动物权利，他认为“权利意味着责任”。19Thecurrentenvironmentalmovementdirectsitsenergiesatthebiggerpicturebutfailstoseethatenvironmentalproblemsaregeneratedandresolvedbyordinarypeople.Thesacredagainsttoday'sfashionableformsofatheism.Evolutioncannotexplainourconceptionofthesacred;neuroscienceisirrelevanttoourinterpersonalrelationshipsandscientificunderstandinghasnothingtosayabouttheexperienceofbeauty,whichprovidesaGod's-eyeperspectiveonreality.20DrawingonScrutyon’ssownexperiencesofhuntingandofferingadelightfulportraitofthepeopleandanimalswhotakepartinit.Scrutonintroducesthemysteriesofcountrylife.Hepleasfortolerancetowardasportinwhichtheloveofanimalsprevailsoverthepursuitofthem,andinwhichNatureherselfisthecenterofthedrama.AmongthemostdramaticandironicdiscoveriesthatOnHuntingtellsusthathuntingisaboutaloveofandrespectforanimals,ratherthanablood-thirstyhatredofthem,andthatthesport,farfrombeinglimitedtoanupper-class,old-moniedaristocracy(有钱的贵族),isreallyonepromotinganegalitarianmeritocracy（平等的精英）.21BeautyhasanindispensableparttoplayinshapingthehumanworldAnovelaboutthechaoticunderworldofaYorkshirecity.任何法定的特权意味着没有这一特权的人的负担，他说’你的特权可能是我负担’。Scruton因此将动物权利运动视为文明世界的最奇怪的文化飘移。他认为权利与责任是人类的特征。将其扩展到我们人类以外毫无意义。Everylegalprivilege,hewrites,imposesaburdenontheonewhodoesnotpossessthatprivilege:thatis,yourrightmaybemyduty.Scrutonthereforeregardstheemergenceoftheanimalrightsmovementasthestrangestculturalshiftwithintheliberalworldview,becausetheideaofrightsandresponsibilitiesis,heargues,distinctivetothehumancondition,anditmakesnosensetospreadthembeyondourownspecies2223Doanimalshaverights?Ifnot,dowehavedutiestowardsthem?Ifso,whatduties?Whyareanimal-rightsgroupssokeentoprotecttherightsofbadgersandfoxesbutnotofrats,miceorevenhumans?Howcanwebridgethegrowinggapbetweenruralproducersandurbanconsumers?Whyisraisinganimalsforfurmoreheinousthanraisingthemfortheirmeat?Areweashumanbeingsdrivingotherspecieseithertoextinctionortoastateofdependency?AnimalActivismandIntimidationofScientistsSCIENCEEDITOR-IN-CHIEFDONALDKENNEDYISONTHEMARKWITHHISCALLFORINSTITUtionstosupporttheirscientistsandresearchersundersiegebyanimalrightsterrorists(“Animalactivism:outofcontrol,”15Sept.,p.1541).AsdirectorsofAmericansforMedicalProgress,wefeelthatitisequallyimportanttourgetheentirescientificcommunityandtheirsupporterstorallypubliclyforthosetargetedbyextremists.OurscientificbrethrenintheUnitedKingdomhavebeenunifiedandproactiveintheirsuccessfuleffortstomoderatethepublicdebateoverthehumaneuseofanimalsinresearch.Initiativesexpressingpopularsupportforanimalresearch,suchasPro-TestandThePeople’sPetition,havedemonstratedthatsciencewillnotbecowedandhavehelpedscientiststospeakoutinpublic.TheassaultonUniversityofCalifornia,LosAngeles(UCLA)primateresearcherDarioRingachisanattackonresponsibleresearchbeingconductedeverywhere.ItisnotenoughforUCLAadministrators,fac