現代キリスト教思想における動物倫理の位置付け

抄録

This article explores the status of animal ethics in contemporary Christian thought, considering traditional theological interpretations of animals. The subject of animal ethics is dominated by two different theories. In the utilitarian approach, Peter Singer argues for freeing animals from human domination (“animal liberation”), while according to Tom Regan’s imperative approach, individual animals have “animal rights.” Singer and Regan both criticize traditional theological interpretations of animals, because traditional Christian thinkers adhere to the anthropocentric assumption that humans have the right to exploit other animals. Christian interpretations of the “image of God” in which humankind was created fall largely into two categories: the substantial and the relational. Recently, many contemporary theologians have emphasized the relational aspects of the “image of God.” Stanley Hauerwas and John Berkman consider that the significant theological difference between humans and animals lies in the unique purpose given to humans by God, rather than human rationality as such. From this standpoint, people have a responsibility to serve animals and to represent their best interests. As humans we are required to care for our animal neighbors, like the Good Samaritan. Animal Ethics in contemporary Christian thought has the potential to develop other ethical considerations, such as the question of our moral responsibility to people with cognitive disabilities, because animals, babies, and the mentally and intellectually disabled cannot themselves defend their right to be treated morally.