邀请了作者在 12 月中旬为中国读者做新书分享

Josh Milburn
乔希·米尔本
Food, Justice, and Animals《食物、正义和动物》
新书分享
2024 年 12 月 13 日 周五 6pm
Microsoft Teams 383 695 520 709
密码 vAmDWH
腾讯会议转播 350-671-862

When philosophers talk about animals, they usually talk about moral philosophy. This is what Peter Singer and Tom Regan do, for example: they ask questions about how individuals should behave towards animals, and ask questions about the value of animals. In the 21st century, however, philosophers have started to talk about animals using the ideas of political philosophy. This is what I do in a lot of my work.
当哲学家谈论动物时，他们通常会谈论道德哲学。例如，彼得·辛格（Peter Singer）和汤姆·雷根（Tom Regan），他们探讨人类个体应该如何对待动物，以及动物的价值。然而，在21世纪，哲学家开始通过政治哲学的视角来讨论动物。我的研究中也涉及很多这样的内容。

What does it mean to think about animals using political philosophy?
那么，用政治哲学的视角来思考动物意味着什么呢？

First, it might involve extending theories and ideas from politics to include animals. Here is a comparison:
1. Peter Singer extends the moral theory of utilitarianism to include animals.
2. Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka extend the POLITICAL theory of liberalism to include animals, and explore what it would mean to think about animals as ‘citizens’ of a mixed human/animal society, or ‘sovereign’ rulers over their own wild animal societies. (Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka’s book Zoopolis is available in Chinese.)

首先，这可能涉及将政治领域的理论和观点扩展到动物身上。例如以下的比较：
1. 彼得·辛格将道德哲学中的功利主义理论扩展到了动物身上。
2. 苏·唐纳森（Sue Donaldson）和威尔·金里卡（Will Kymlicka）则将政治哲学中的自由主义理论扩展到了动物身上。他们探讨了如果将动物视为“公民”，融入一种人类和动物混合的社会，或将动物视为主导自己野生动物社会的“主权者”，将意味着什么。（苏·唐纳森和威尔·金里卡的著作《动物社群》（Zoopolis）已有中文版。）

Second, it might mean thinking about the same questions as moral philosophers, but in a different way. For example, this is what I do in my 2023 book Food, Justice, and Animals: Feeding the World Respectfully. Lots of philosophers have thought about what animal rights means for our diets. Not many philosophers have asked the political question of what animal rights mean for our food systems. In my book, I argue that it is wrong to think that animal rights means we must have a vegan food system.

其次，这可能意味着去思考一些与道德哲学家们所思考的类似问题，但以不同的方式切入。例如，我在2023年的著作《食物、正义与动物：以尊重之心解决全球粮食需求》（Food, Justice, and Animals: Feeding the World Respectfully）中所探讨的就是这个问题。许多哲学家都思考过动物权利对我们饮食方式意味着什么，但很少有人问过政治层面的问题：动物权利对我们的粮食系统意味着什么。在我的书中，我主张认为动物权利必然要求我们拥有一个维根（纯素）粮食系统的想法是错误的。

I argue that there are ways to produce meat and other animal foods without violating animals’ rights. For example, some animals are not sentient (which means that they do not think or feel) and so they do not have rights. This includes oysters and jellyfish. Other animal products can be produced using new food technologies without harming animals. For example, the technology of ‘cultivated meat’ can create meat from only a few animal cells, and so (perhaps) without harming any animals. Meanwhile, the technology of ‘precision fermentation’ can create animal proteins (for example, milk proteins) using genetically modified yeast, and so no animals are needed. Finally, I ask whether we could think of animals on farms as ‘workers’, protected by ‘workers’ rights’. These rights would mean that we couldn’t kill or mutilate these animals. But perhaps, for example, we could imagine something that looks a bit like a chicken sanctuary producing eggs that could be compatible with animal rights.
我认为，有一些方法可以在不侵犯动物权利的情况下生产肉类和其他动物食品。例如，有些动物并没有感知能力（即它们不会思考或感受），因此它们没有权利。这包括牡蛎和水母。此外，通过新的食品技术，我们可以在不伤害动物的情况下生产动物产品。例如，“培养肉”技术可以用少量的动物细胞培育出肉类，可能（或许）不需要伤害任何动物。同时，“精准发酵”技术可以利用基因改造的酵母生产动物蛋白（例如奶蛋白），从而无需使用动物。最后，我探讨了能否将农场中的动物视为“工人”，并保护其“工人权利”。这些权利可能意味着我们不能杀害或伤害这些动物。但也许，我们可以想象一种类似于“鸡类庇护所”的地方，既能够生产蛋类，又可以符合动物权利的要求。

A third contribution that political philosophy could make to thinking about animals is by thinking about the way animals are impacted by international relationships. This is another area of my research. I have spent time thinking about how animals are impacted by war, and how we could include animals in the ethics of war.
第三，用政治哲学思考动物还能帮助我们探讨国际关系对动物的影响。这是我研究的另一个领域。我曾深入研究战争对动物的影响，以及如何将动物纳入战争伦理的讨论中。

‘Just war theory’ is a tradition of thought that asks:
• When are we allowed to wage war?
• How should we behave in war?
• What are our duties after war?
“正义战争理论”（Just War Theory）是一种思想传统，它试图回答以下问题：
• 在什么情况下我们可以发动战争？
• 在战争中我们应该如何行为？
• 战争结束后我们的责任是什么？

I argue that we can include animals in these questions. For example, our choice to wage war must be ‘proportionate’. This means that the harm that we will cause by going to war cannot outweigh the harm that we will prevent. But animals, too, are harmed by war. And that harm should count. And this means that war might be harder to justify, because it is more likely to be disproportionate.
我主张，我们可以将动物纳入这些问题的讨论。例如，我们选择发动战争必须是“比例性”（proportionate）的。这意味着，我们通过战争所造成的伤害不能超过我们希望通过战争阻止的伤害。然而，动物也会因战争而受害，这种伤害也应被纳入考量。这可能使战争更难以被正当化，因为它更可能被认为不符合比例原则。

In my presentation, I will introduce these ideas, exploring what it means to do ‘animal political philosophy’, and discussing ideas of animal citizenship; food systems; and the ethics of war.
在我的演讲中，我将介绍这些思想，探讨什么是“动物政治哲学”，并具体讨论动物公民的身份、粮食系统以及战争伦理的相关内容。