• Cartoon and Animation Studies
• /
• s.50
• /
• pp.299-325
• /
• 2018

Humans have made a third person over a long history and differentiated them from each other. Discrimination of 'us' and 'them' has led Derrida to make works to look upon the human nature towards animal strangers. This study tries to examine upon the expansion of animal strangers by focusing on 'The Animal That Therefore I am.' Furthermore, the research asserts to pay more attention to animal strangers by looking at his works of how modern people think about animals in the current society. Derrida expresses his 'humiliation' that he felt when he faced his cat after a shower. This emotion brings up the topic that was neglected in the conventional wisdom and casts doubts on this. This emotion of humuliation is only felt by humans, and he explains this is one way of feeling like a 'human.' The researcher therefore focuses on the 'experiences of humans' and looks at the ambivalence of humans in culture and the irony in natural animals. This perspective criticizes Speciesism, which considers people other than oneself able to be suffered. This view also tried to escape anthro-pocentrism and looked at the animals on their own. This study examines current animal strangers with theories of Donna Haraway and Jane Goodal, and analyzes Derrida's artworks with Susan Sontag's philosophy. This aims to lead to a conclusion of how to reach an optimal relationship between human and animal. By focusing on Derrida, who has not been highlighted yet in this country, hopes to create effective communication between human and animal by explaining his artworks through new philosophy of animals.

• Journal of the Daesoon Academy of Sciences
• /
• v.37
• /
• pp.229-262
• /
• 2021

The debate on the treatment of animals has accelerated as a social issue in the West since the 1970s. In 1975, Peter Singers argued in his book, Animal Liberation, that speciesism should be banned. This led to an explosion in research on animal welfare in the philosophical and social sciences. Following Singer, Tom Regan suggested considering the animal rights as being on the same level as human rights. Their arguments were that animals should be imbued with some intrinsic weight sufficient enough to remind humans of their social responsibility to animals at least to a certain degree. In this regard, social responsibility for animal welfare as well as animal rights has formed an axis that organizes human morality in modern society. Such arguments regarding animal welfare can be perceived as an active and creative effort which accords with the free will of human beings who in Daesoon Thought are understood as facing the era of human nobility. This argumentation also aligns with the doctrine of grievance-resolution for mutual beneficence as a practical creed due to the way in which modern bioethics implies that animal welfare could become a practical communal morality integrated into legal systems prior to adoption as a system of individual morality. From within this context, this study discusses the nature and limits of modern animal welfare and animal rights from the perspective of the grievance-resolution which Kang Jeungsan promised to animals.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.148
• /
• pp.129-156
• /
• 2018

Recently, a lot of articles and writings defending animal right and welfare are introduced into our society. For example, P. Singer's Animal Liberation, T. Regan's The Case for Animal Rights, and J. Rachels's Created From Animal are representative writings of animal ethics. In his books, P. Singer maintains that all animals are equal. T. Regan insisted that animals as a subject of a life have rights. J. Rachels's moral individualism is that how an individual may be treated is to be determined, not by considering his group membership, but by considering his own particular characteristics. Interestingly, they use common argument called 'argument from marginal cases' to justify their theoretical positions. If we can disclose the weakness of the argument, all kinds of animal ethics which defend animal right and welfare such as animal liberation theory, animal rights theory and moral individualism will collapse. In this paper, I will examine the concrete contexts in which Singer, Regan and Rachels make use of the argument. And I will critically examine the argument. Lastly I will show that the attempt to deny the difference of species is unsuccessful.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.143
• /
• pp.87-118
• /
• 2017

In this paper, I will show several theoretical nonconformities which can be found in P. Singer's concept of human beings. As we know, P. Singer is a well-known animal liberalist. On the one hand, Singer regards man as a subordinate being to nature and on the other, as a transcendent being. This is the first inconsistency of Singer's concept of man. His second inconsistency is related to his position on the power of reason. He believes that it is the product of evolution, and at the same time that it is a power to resist the blindness of evolution. Thirdly, he also exposes the contradictory attitude in evaluation on man's moral ability. Considering these three contradictions, it becomes clear that Singer has failed to prove his claim that there is no qualitative difference between human beings and animals. Despite the popularity of his theory, I believe the theoretical foundation of Singer's animal liberation theory is rather weak. The reason for revealing the weakness of Singer's theory is not to return to the practice of mercilessly handling animals but to show that it is wrong to undermine human dignity under the guise of animal welfare.