Dick Sobsey：もう一人、障害のある子どもを持つ学者からのシンガー批判 （後）
(前のエントリーから続く)
I think there is an argument for including all humans as persons, but I don’t necessarily think that all nonhuman animals should be excluded. My reasons for including all humans is not very philosophical, it is social and psychological. Humans are social beings. We are not that impressive as single organisms, but we can do a lot as families, organizations, nations etc. We need some set of rules for dealing with each other. I believe that a set of universal human rights is a good place to start. Whether we want to include other nonhuman animals in this is an open question for me. I would extend at least some rights to nonhuman animals, and I would not be offended if we could work out a way to treat them as equals or at least more like equals. However, treating them better or more fairly does not require sacrificing the rights of others. So, Mark, I think we are pretty close on that part. I agree that there is no argument for including all humans and thereby excluding all nonhumans. However, I do say that human rights has progressed by including more and more humans as equals, with equal moral status) and that has been a good thing. If we can extend it further to other animals that will probably be good, too, but there is no reason to turn the clock back on universal human rights in order to widen the sphere.
I fact, I think that the exclusion of people with profound intellectual disabilities will hurt the cause of animal rights for a simple but important reason. People with severe and profound disabilities differ from other groups who have previously been included in one big way, they have not been able to advocate articulately for their inclusion or negotiate their own way into the social contract. Neither can apes or other mammals. If we draw the line between humans who can negotiate their own way and those who can’t, the same line will exist for nonhuman animals. The inclusion of people with severe and profound disabilities sets a precedent that individuals can be included just because it is right and not because they can negotiate their own way in. Their exclusion sets the precedent that if human or nonhuman animals can’t articulate their arguments for inclusion, they will be excluded.
私が人間をみんな包摂しようというのは、哲学的な理由からじゃない。
社会的な理由、心理的な理由からだ。だって人は個体として何が出来るという存在じゃない。
人は家族として、社会として、国民として、関係性の中にある。
そのためのルールが必要なら、
万人に等しくあるべき人権から始めるのは良いことではないのだろうか。
より多くの人間を平等な存在として包摂する努力によって人権概念は進化してきた。
それは良いことだったのではないのだろうか。
それなら、そこにさらにnonhumanな動物（大型類人猿のこと？）を包摂すればいいのであって、
これまでの努力の時計を戻して、人を排除しなければ彼らを包摂できないわけではあるまい。
I think there is an argument for including all humans as persons, but I don’t necessarily think that all nonhuman animals should be excluded. My reasons for including all humans is not very philosophical, it is social and psychological. Humans are social beings. We are not that impressive as single organisms, but we can do a lot as families, organizations, nations etc. We need some set of rules for dealing with each other. I believe that a set of universal human rights is a good place to start. Whether we want to include other nonhuman animals in this is an open question for me. I would extend at least some rights to nonhuman animals, and I would not be offended if we could work out a way to treat them as equals or at least more like equals. However, treating them better or more fairly does not require sacrificing the rights of others. So, Mark, I think we are pretty close on that part. I agree that there is no argument for including all humans and thereby excluding all nonhumans. However, I do say that human rights has progressed by including more and more humans as equals, with equal moral status) and that has been a good thing. If we can extend it further to other animals that will probably be good, too, but there is no reason to turn the clock back on universal human rights in order to widen the sphere.
I fact, I think that the exclusion of people with profound intellectual disabilities will hurt the cause of animal rights for a simple but important reason. People with severe and profound disabilities differ from other groups who have previously been included in one big way, they have not been able to advocate articulately for their inclusion or negotiate their own way into the social contract. Neither can apes or other mammals. If we draw the line between humans who can negotiate their own way and those who can’t, the same line will exist for nonhuman animals. The inclusion of people with severe and profound disabilities sets a precedent that individuals can be included just because it is right and not because they can negotiate their own way in. Their exclusion sets the precedent that if human or nonhuman animals can’t articulate their arguments for inclusion, they will be excluded.
私が人間をみんな包摂しようというのは、哲学的な理由からじゃない。
社会的な理由、心理的な理由からだ。だって人は個体として何が出来るという存在じゃない。
人は家族として、社会として、国民として、関係性の中にある。
そのためのルールが必要なら、
万人に等しくあるべき人権から始めるのは良いことではないのだろうか。
より多くの人間を平等な存在として包摂する努力によって人権概念は進化してきた。
それは良いことだったのではないのだろうか。
それなら、そこにさらにnonhumanな動物（大型類人猿のこと？）を包摂すればいいのであって、
これまでの努力の時計を戻して、人を排除しなければ彼らを包摂できないわけではあるまい。
なお、Sobsey氏はここで書いたことをさらに掘り下げて、
後日、What Sorts ブログにこの問題に関して以下のエントリーを立てました。
後日、What Sorts ブログにこの問題に関して以下のエントリーを立てました。
これらの内容のまとめ方についても
今こうして読み返してみると忸怩たるものはあるのですが、
２年前の私にとってはこれが精いっぱいだったのでした。
今こうして読み返してみると忸怩たるものはあるのですが、
２年前の私にとってはこれが精いっぱいだったのでした。
ご寛容ください。
