人与宠物外文文献翻译中英文2018

人与宠物外文文献翻译中英文

文献出处：Shriver, A., Ede, T., Mills, K., & Sato-Reinhold, J. (2018).

Pets and People: The Ethics of Our Relationships with Companion

Animals. Anthrozoös, 31(2), 265–267..

译文字数：1900多字

原文

Pets and People: The Ethics of Our Relationships with Companion Animals

Adam Shriver, Thomas Ede, Katelyn Mills & Joyce Sato-Reinhold

Christine Overall’s edited volume on ethical issues arising from the relationships

between humans and companion animals is an insightful read on the phylogenetically

distant yet emotionally close friends that share our homes. Pets and People consists of

eighteen essays divided into two parts, with Part I focused on more general

philosophical frameworks relevant to human relationships with companion animals

and Part II directed at specific applied ethical questions that arise from these

relationships. The book draws upon a wide range of ethical frameworks, and in our

view largely succeeds both as a collection of insightful arguments about companion

animals and as an invitation for others to engage with the important topics considered

in the book.

The book is pitched as ―the first anthology of philosophical articles about ethics

and companion animals‖ and, aside from a few gaps we discuss below, it does an

excellent job rising to the challenge of being a first of its kind collection. The book

includes a variety of ethical approaches, from the straightforward analytic

philosophical ethics expressed in two-level utilitarianism, to continental discussions

about the nature of empathy, to the feminist and ethics of care traditions. The book is

particularly inspired by the writings of Jean Harvey, whose work is referenced

throughout in a tribute to the late philosopher and originator of this project, as well as

Donaldson and Kymlicka’s Zoopolis, one of the key books associated with the

political turn in animal ethics.

In addition to covering an expansive swath of ethical theory, the book also

addresses a number of specific issues related to companion animals, from breeding to

euthanasia; and from training to zoophilia. As such, we think that one of the great

virtues of the book is that it provides numerous opportunities for scholars to engage in

the discussions raised. Given that there are many academic scholars who care deeply

about their companion animals but have, for various reasons, not engaged in debates

about moral vegetarianism or laboratory animals, we hope this book can serve as an

impetus for wider engagement in discussions related to human relationships with

animals.

With that said, there were a few opportunities for improvement. The first is not

specific to this book, but rather a ―pet peeve‖ of ours that applies to many collections

and anthologies. Many of this book’s chapters address similar topics from different

perspectives, but without any engagement between the two viewpoints. For instance,

the editor’s own fantastic chapter on euthanasia argued for the moral good of

prolonging animal life, while Michael Cholbi’s concluding chapter argued in favor of

earlier euthanasia of companion animals. In addition, it is hard to see how the various

arguments advocating for the expression of species-specific behaviors were consistent

with a chapter recommending feeding carnivorous dogs a vegan diet. In other words,

insofar as the authors discussed the same topics, they were largely talking past each

other. Other chapters set up tantalizing conversations—for example, how does Tina

Rulli’s comparison of human adoption to animal adoption relate to Kathryn J.

Norlock’s dependency-based argument for the moral necessity supporting the

adoption of animals from shelters—and it would have been fascinating to hear these

thinkers speak to each others’ positions. Part of the value of anthologies such as this is

seeing careful, original thought directed at challenging topics, and in that regard the

book succeeds quite well. However, anthologies like this also provide an opportunity

for thinkers to push each other to respond to new challenges, and there was little

engagement of this sort in this anthology (as with many others).

Another gap in the content was in the almost exclusive focus on cats and dogs.

Overall does briefly mention this in the introduction and it is understandable that the

book directs its attention at the companion animals we are most familiar with.

However, for a book such as this, with an aim of laying out an overview of issues

related to companion animals, it would have been nice to have seen a full chapter

devoted exclusively towards testing the limits of the preferred definition(s) on other

species. Can everything said about cats and dogs be equally applied to mice, parrots,

or fish? What about salamanders or beetles? What are the requirements in determining

whether an animal can truly be a companion animal? Aside from occasional passing

mentions of other species including primates, horses, and a remarkable turkey found

in Bernard Rollin’s chapter, along with Varner’s brief discussion of criteria for a

companion animal from Schuppli and Fraser, few species other than cats and dogs are

discussed. We feel the discussion of cats and dogs would not have been diminished by

the inclusion of an additional chapter focused on examining the full scope of animals

that can meet our definitions of ―pet,‖ ―companion animal‖ and/or ―domesticated

partners.‖

Finally, many of the chapters provide nice arguments that suggest that we have

moral obligations to treat companion animals well and to nurture our relationships

with them. But the book overall also seems to overlook a key question that is relevant

to every human with a companion animal; how do we balance these obligations with

other types of obligations we have and with our own self-interest? Take Harvey’s

suggestions that our primary moral obligation towards companion animals is to,

―develop, nurture, respect, and protect the loving relationship between them and their

human companions.‖ This sounds good in practice, but how should we think of this

obligation in light of other items competing for our time? For example, if my goal is

to develop my relationship with my dog as much as possible, then perhaps it would be

a good thing to take off work to spend time with my dog. In fact, it seems as though

from some dogs’ perspectives, there is no amount of time with their human

companions that is ―too much,‖ and there arguably is no point at which a person

spending additional time with the dog will fail to further develop the relationship. So

how do we balance this moral duty (agreeing that it is indeed a good thing) against

other possible obligations we have? We need to choose to prioritize other things at

certain times, and to do so in ways that it would be hard to argue is in line with our

actual or potential companion animals’ immediate preferences. It is likely that the

various theorists have something to say about how to balance our obligations to pets

with other duties based on the frameworks they have developed, but the book as a

whole spends very little time discussing this topic.

Overall, the great virtue of the book is its invitation to the reader to reconsider

many still- neglected aspects of our bonds with pets, which ultimately extends to

reflections on our relationships with fellow humans and with ourselves. Pets and

People is a muchneeded piece of work that provides readers with a look at the ethical

complexities of living with another species.

译文

宠物与人：我们与动物关系的伦理

Adam Shriver，Thomas Ede，Katelyn Mills和Joyce Sato-Reinhold

关于人类与伴侣动物之间关系引发的伦理问题是对这些情感亲密的朋友的共识，这些朋友分享我们的家园。 “宠物和人”由十八篇文章组成，分为两部分，第一部分侧重于与人类与伴侣动物关系相关的更一般的哲学框架，第二部分针对这些关系产生的具体应用伦理问题。本书借鉴了广泛的道德框架，在我们看来，这些框架在很大程度上成功地收集了关于伴侣动物的深刻见解，并邀请其他人参与书中考虑的重要主题。

这本书被称为“关于道德和伴侣动物的第一本关于哲学文章的选集”，除了我们在下面讨论的一些空白之外，它还能很好地应对成为

第一个同类系列的挑战。本书包括各种伦理方法，从两级功利主义表达的直接分析哲学伦理，到关于移情本质的大陆讨论，到护理传统的女权主义和伦理。这本书特别受到让·哈维（Jean Harvey）着作的启发，他的作品始终是为了纪念已故的哲学家和这个项目的创始人，以及唐纳森和Kymlicka的Zoopolis，这是与动物政治转向相关的重要书籍之一。

伦理

除了涵盖广泛的伦理理论之外，该书还涉及与伴侣动物相关的一些具体问题，从繁殖到安乐死;从训练到动物园。因此，我们认为本书的一大优点是它为学者提供了大量参与所讨论的机会。鉴于有许多学术学者非常关心他们的伴侣动物，但由于各种原因，没有参与关于道德素食主义或实验室动物的辩论，我们希望这本书可以作为更广泛参与有关人际关系的讨论的推动力。

动物

话虽如此，还有一些改进的机会。第一部分不是本书的具体内容，而是我们的“宠儿”，适用于许多收藏品和选集。本书的许多章节从不同的角度讨论类似的主题，但两个观点之间没有任何参与。例如，编辑自己关于安乐死的奇妙篇章主张延长动物生命的道德利益，而迈克尔乔尔比的结论章则赞成早期的伴侣动物安乐死。此外，很难看出提倡表达物种特异性行为的各种论据如何与推荐食用食肉狗的纯素饮食的章节一致。换句话说，就作者讨论相同的主题而言，他们在很大程度上是相互讨论的。其他章节设置了引人入胜的对话 - 例如，

Tina Rulli将人类采用与动物采用的比较与Kathryn J. Norlock基于依赖性的论证如何支持从庇护所采用动物的道德必然性 - 这将是非常有趣的听到这些思想家对彼此的立场说话。像这样的选集的部分价值在于看到针对具有挑战性的主题的细致，原创的思想，并且在这方面，这本书取得了很好的成功。然而，这样的选集也为思想家提供了一个互相推动以应对新挑战的机会，而这一选集中很少有这种参与（与许多其他人一样）。

内容中的另一个差距是几乎专注于猫和狗。总的来说，在引言中简要地提到了这一点，并且可以理解的是，该书将其注意力集中在我们最熟悉的伴侣动物身上。然而，对于这样一本书来说，为了概述与伴侣动物有关的问题，看到一章专门用于测试其他首选定义的限制本上会很不错。种类。所有关于猫和狗的说法都可以同样适用于老鼠，鹦鹉或鱼吗？蝾螈或甲虫怎么样？确定动物是否真的可以成为伴侣动物有哪些要求？除了伯纳德罗林章节中偶尔提到的其他物种，包括灵长类动物，马匹和一种非凡的火鸡，以及瓦尔纳关于Schuppli和Fraser伴侣动物标准的简短讨论，我们还讨论了除猫和狗之外的其他物种。我们认为，对于猫狗的讨论不会因为包含一个额外的章节而减少，该章节的重点是检查能够满足我们对“宠物”，“伴侣动物”和/或“驯化伙伴”的定义的动物的全部范围。

最后，许多章节提供了很好的论据，表明我们有道德义务很好地对待伴侣动物并培养我们与它们的关系。但是整本书似乎也忽略了一个与伴侣动物相关的关键问题;我们如何平衡这些义务与我们拥有的

其他类型的义务以及我们自身的利益？以哈维的观点为例，我们对伴侣动物的主要道德义务是“发展，培养，尊重和保护他们与人类同伴之间的爱情关系。”这在实践中听起来不错，但我们应该如何看待这种义务呢？其他项目竞争我们的时间？例如，如果我的目标是尽可能地发展我与我的狗的关系，那么放下工作与我的狗共度时间也许是一件好事。事实上，似乎从某些狗的角度来看，他们的人类伴侣没有多少时间“太多”，并且可以说，与狗一起度过额外时间的人将无法进一步发展关系。那么，我们如何平衡这种道德责任（同意这确实是一件好事）与我们拥有的其他可能的义务？我们需要选择在特定时间对其他事物进行优先排序，并且以难以争辩的方式进行，以符合我们的实际或潜在伴侣动物的直接偏好。各种理论家可能会根据他们开发的框架，就如何平衡我们对宠物的义务与其他职责进行平衡，但整本书在讨论这一主题时花费的时间很少。

总的来说，这本书的伟大之处在于邀请读者重新考虑我们与宠物的关系中许多仍然被忽视的方面，这最终扩展到我们与人类和我们自己的关系的反思。宠物和人是一项非常需要的工作，让读者了解与另一物种共存的道德复杂性。