Centre for Compassionate Conservation, Faculty of Science, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2007, Australia.
Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, 97331, U.S.A.
Conserv Biol. 2020 Oct;34(5):1097-1106. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13494. Epub 2020 May 18.
Compassionate conservation is based on the ethical position that actions taken to protect biodiversity should be guided by compassion for all sentient beings. Critics argue that there are 3 core reasons harming animals is acceptable in conservation programs: the primary purpose of conservation is biodiversity protection; conservation is already compassionate to animals; and conservation should prioritize compassion to humans. We used argument analysis to clarify the values and logics underlying the debate around compassionate conservation. We found that objections to compassionate conservation are expressions of human exceptionalism, the view that humans are of a categorically separate and higher moral status than all other species. In contrast, compassionate conservationists believe that conservation should expand its moral community by recognizing all sentient beings as persons. Personhood, in an ethical sense, implies the individual is owed respect and should not be treated merely as a means to other ends. On scientific and ethical grounds, there are good reasons to extend personhood to sentient animals, particularly in conservation. The moral exclusion or subordination of members of other species legitimates the ongoing manipulation and exploitation of the living worlds, the very reason conservation was needed in the first place. Embracing compassion can help dismantle human exceptionalism, recognize nonhuman personhood, and navigate a more expansive moral space.
慈悲保护基于这样一种伦理立场，即保护生物多样性的行动应该以对所有有感知能力的生物的同情为指导。批评者认为，在保护项目中伤害动物有 3 个核心原因是可以接受的：保护的主要目的是保护生物多样性；保护已经对动物有同情心；保护应该优先考虑对人类的同情。我们使用论证分析来澄清围绕慈悲保护的争论所依据的价值观和逻辑。我们发现，反对慈悲保护是人类例外论的表现，即人类在道德上与所有其他物种有本质上的区别，处于更高的地位。相比之下，慈悲保护主义者认为，保护应该通过承认所有有感知能力的生物为人来扩大其道德共同体。从伦理意义上讲，人格意味着个体应该得到尊重，而不应该仅仅被视为达到其他目的的手段。从科学和伦理的角度来看，有充分的理由将人格扩展到有感知能力的动物身上，特别是在保护方面。将其他物种的成员排除在道德之外或置于其下，使得对生物世界的持续操纵和利用合法化，而这正是保护首先需要的原因。接受同情可以帮助打破人类例外论，承认非人类的人格，并在更广阔的道德空间中进行导航。
