限界事例からの議論
(Argument from species overlap から転送)
出典: フリー百科事典『ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 (2023/10/30 07:35 UTC 版)
限界事例からの議論（げんかいじれいからのぎろん、英語: argument from marginal cases）は、動物の権利の理論で提示される人間以外の動物の倫理的地位に関する議論で、乳幼児、老人、昏睡状態にある人、認知障害のある人が倫理的地位を有すると仮定すると、これらの限界事例の人間と人間以外の動物の間に倫理的に重要な違いがないという理由で、人間以外の動物にも同様の地位が認められるとするもの。「倫理的地位」とは、例えば殺されない権利や苦しめられない権利、あるいは扱われ方に関する全般的な倫理的要求のことを総じて指す[1]。
- ^ Dombrowski 1997.
- ^ Frey 1988, p. 197.
- ^ Harter 1983.
- ^ Horta 2014, p. 144.
- ^ 能力（言語能力、意識、他者に対する倫理的責任を負う能力）を基準とするものや、関係性（共感能力、勢力関係を構築する能力）を基準とするものを含む[4]。
- ^ “The catch is that any such characteristic that is possessed by all human beings will not be possessed only by human beings. For example, all human beings, but not only human beings, are capable of feeling pain; and while only human beings are capable of solving complex mathematical problems, not all humans can do this.” (Singer 2015, Chapter 6)
- ^ Dombrowski 1984.
- ^ Maehle 1993.
- ^ Horta 2014, p. 152, Notes.
- ^ Wilson n.d., The argument from marginal cases (again).
- ^ Regan 1979.
- ^ Pluhar 1995.
- ^ Horta 2014.
- ^ Rachels 1991.
- ^ “How should we read Machan’s broken-chair analogy? There is only one coherent way to interpret it. He is arguing that, just as a broken chair still belongs in the category of chairs, a marginal human still belongs in the category of humans. And because marginal humans belong to a species whose normal members can reason, have guilt, be held responsible for their actions – which Machan previously argued is a necessary condition for having any rights – the marginal members, too, deserve the same moral protections as those normal members. Here an implied premise lurks: Any member of a species most of whose members are moral agents has the same rights and protections as the normal members of that species. To put it more concisely: The moral status of an individual depends on what is normal for that individual’s species. I will call this the Argument from Species Normality.” (Graham 2004, The argument from species normality)
- ^ 「argument from species normality」の用語はデイヴィッド・グラハムが提唱した[15]。
- ^ “… classifications and ascriptions of capacities rely on the good sense of making certain generalizations. One way to show this is to recall that broken chairs, while they aren’t any good to sit on, are still chairs, not monkeys or palm trees. Classifications are not something rigid but something reasonable. While there are some people who either for a little or longer while – say when they’re asleep or in a coma – lack moral agency, in general people possess that capacity, whereas non-people don’t. So it makes sense to understand them having rights so their capacity is respected and may be protected. This just doesn’t work for other animals.” (Machan 2004)
- ^ Graham 2004.
- ^ Regan & Singer 1989, p. 100.
[続きの解説]
「限界事例からの議論」の続きの解説一覧
- 1 限界事例からの議論とは
- 2 限界事例からの議論の概要
- 3 関連項目
- 限界事例からの議論のページへのリンク
