動物權 論爭: 哲學的, 法學的 論議를 中心으로

The primary purpose of this paper is to analyze current debates over animal rights. This paper is not intended to provide a comprehensive discussion of debates over animal rights. Rather, it attempts to focus on philosophical and legal arguments. In achieving this goal, the paper is divided into eight chapters. The first parts of the paper deals with historical development of legal status of animals, religious discussion, discussion prior to 20 century. The second parts of the paper, the main part of this paper, analyzes current debates on animal rights. The last part of the paper examines U.S. precedents on legal status of animals, animal protection laws in major countries and international treaties. For many people in our society, the concept of legal rights for animals is quite unthinkable, That is because we have used them in various ways that are harmful to the animals. Throughout our history, animals have had no rights due to the recognition of property status of animals. The concept of animals as property is based on the ancient Stoic view of the world. The Old Testament also reflects the idea that humans have a central place in the universe and top the natural hierarchy. Following the Stoic and Biblical beliefs, early English common law saw animals as "things" and early United States' common law also had the similar position. However, with the emergence of the utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham, animal suffering was directly considered through in terms of utility rather than rights. In the 1970s, philosopher Peter Singer sparked an animal rights revolution with "Animal Liberation". He argues that if animals are sentient, they have interests and must be treated with equal consideration. This is the famous "principle of equal consideration". He also argues that all lives are not of equal worth, but suffering is to be counted equally regardless of species. On the other hand, Tom Regan argues that individuals have "inherent value" and that the value must be respected. Being "a subject of a life" is a sufficient condition for having inherent value. Another famous animal rights advocate, Professor Gary Francione argues that as long as animals remain legal property, law can not truly protect any animal interests against even trivial human concerns. Namely animals can never have rights within the current legal system of property. Thus he urges the animal protection movement to pursue total abolition of property status for animals. Gary Francione criticizes, new welfarists, those who fight for animal rights within a property regime. He argues that welfarists reform can not achieve animal rights in the long term due to its structural defects. Our society is in the midst of a major debate over animal rights and the legal status of animals. A move from the traditional view of animals as property to the view recognizing the rights of animals is in progress. To recognize animal rights would fundamentally change the way we live. In my opinion, unless animal rightists bring down the animal property regime as a whole, It would be better gradually remove the property status of animals. Enhancing the status of animals in the legal system is a critical task. Therefore, while we continue to strive over the long term for a recognition of animal rights, in the short term, we must make effective laws to better protect animal interests.