코헨의 종차별 옹호논증은 옳은가? - 도덕적 차이 논증과 종류 논증을 중심으로

Is Cohen’s supportive argument for speciesism right? - centering on moral difference argument and kind argument

초록

The purpose of this thesis is to criticize that Cohen's moral difference argument and kind argument can’t be a right answer to anti-speciesist’s criticism (A1) and (A2). Anti-speciesists criticize that speciesism, like racism or sexism, is unfair(A1) and that if animals cannot have their rights, marginal humans can’t, either(A2). Regarding (A1), Cohen presents his moral difference argument that discrimination of animals is fair since there is difference in moral capacity between humans and animals. Regarding (A2), he presents his kind argument that marginal humans own their rights since they belong to human kind. However, I criticize that moral difference argument is a standard unrelated to pain, and that kind argument presents inconsistent conditions and (4) is not inevitably true but a morally unfair principle. Accordingly, I insist that moral difference argument and kind argument can’t be valid answer to (A1) and (A2).

키워드

종차별주의도덕적 차이 논증종류논증동물의 권리가장자리 인간코헨SpeciesismMoral Difference ArgumentKind ArgumentRights of AnimalMarginal humanCarl Cohen
제목
코헨의 종차별 옹호논증은 옳은가? - 도덕적 차이 논증과 종류 논증을 중심으로
제목 (타언어)
Is Cohen’s supportive argument for speciesism right? - centering on moral difference argument and kind argument
저자
이채리
발행일
2015-06
저널명
범한철학
77
2
페이지
305 ~ 330

파일 다운로드