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 importa
nt 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 V arner’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, re spect, 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.
sort of中文翻译
Overall, the great virtue of the book is its invitation to the reader to reco nsider many still- neglected as
pects 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

版权声明：本站内容均来自互联网，仅供演示用，请勿用于商业和其他非法用途。如果侵犯了您的权益请与我们联系QQ:729038198，我们将在24小时内删除。