” Animal rights” in Edo period
The Edict of Compassion for Living Things, known in Japanese as Shorui Awaremi no Rei, was a set of law established in Japan during the Edo period by the 5th Tokugawa Shogun, Tokugawa Tsunayoshi. These edicts were notorious for their extreme and often quaint protection of animals, particularly in dogs. Not only in Japan, but those things were also mentioned by better-known historical persons for long.
I'm sure that it is difficult to recognize animals' lives as much important as our lives because they cannot talk and complain with the languages we understand. Moreover, it is also true that the concept of animal right is built by human and not by them. Thus, it is hard to define "Animal right" but the way of thinking like this enables us to rethink about today's mass consumption lifestyle and the pet industry. By caring about those concepts, we may be able to remind that we coexist.
Moby. (2021, November 22). History of Animal Rights | Moby's Veganniversary [動画]. YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNaeIjsQ2QE
I didn't realize that the concept that animals (especially dogs) should be protected goes back so far in Japanese history, especially considering that laws protecting animals in modern-day Japan aren't that rigorous or strictly enforced. I wonder if you could provide some examples of how the Edo-era edicts were "extreme" and "quaint" in their protection of animals? I'm interested to know.
返信削除Since Abraham Lincoln is a hero of mine, I wish he had actually said, "I am in favor of animal rights as well as human rights; that is the way of a whole human being," but historical scholars have reported that there is no original source for this statement in his collected works or writings. So, it is thought to be either a modern fabrication or a misattribution. In fact, "animal rights" as a formal philosophical and social movement did not exist in the 19th century. It didn't emerge until the 20th century.
The American philosopher, Tom Regan, published an important book in this area in 1983, _The Case for Animal Rights_. He argued that animals have inherent value, a consciousness and interests, therefore they deserve moral consideration and rights, not just "kind" treatment. You say in your blog entry that it may be difficult to "recognize animals' lives [maybe _rights_ too] as important as our lives because they cannot talk and complain with the languages we understand", but isn't it the case that the rights of human babies and toddlers, even though they can't necessarily speak a language we can understand, are seen as having rights and as worthy of protection? "Speciesism" may be considered as morally equivalent to racism or sexism.
The term "speciesism" was invented and first used by the English psychologist and animal rights advocate Richard Ryder in the early 1970s to describe prejudice favoring humans over other species, but it was popularized by philosopher Peter Singer in his book, "Animal Liberation," which I have on a shelf in my office. Feel free to borrow it at any time.