野生動物の生命はどれほど重要か : 動物権利論の射程とその限界

Conventional animal ethics, as represented by Peter Singer and Tom Regan, have argued for ethical concern for animals using criteria derived from specific capacities. However, some individuals find the implications of certain animal ethics troubling, particularly the arguments from marginal cases that could extend moral consideration to vulnerable human populations as well. Additionally, the substantial obligations these frameworks impose on our interactions with wild animals can be overwhelming or unrealistic. Wild animal suffering itself is an accepted fact, but the conclusion that we have the same obligations to wild animals as to domesticated animals is unacceptable. Therefore, I will explain the validity of a relationship-based animal ethic, referring to Claire Palmer's argument, as something that overcomes the competence-based animal ethics. This theory explains how the relationship between humans and animals makes a difference in human obligations. By incorporating this, we can rationally explain the differences in ethical considerations for wild and domestic animals and build an effective animal ethic. While acknowledging the merits of Palmer's theory, this paper identifies certain shortcomings and proposes a refined standard of duty that emphasizes a more specific relationship.