• The Journal of Korean Philosophical History
• /
• no.35
• /
• pp.109-129
• /
• 2012

At this point, in Confucianism's schools debated about analysis for early theory and latterly it of nature between human and animal in Nongam Kim Changhyob's Confucianism. Oh Heeshang argued early theory about Shanguzaezungyongmunmok, written by Kim Changhyob, and establishment of theory about Yokuonyudozaelonshabyonnokbyon, written by him. Kim Changhup, brother of Kim Changhyob, argued so early theory about Shanguzaezungyongmunmok. O Yubong, student of Kim Changhyob, argued establishment of theory about Sobyon and Zabzee, written by Kim Changhyob. While, Yim Songzu argued early theory and establishment of theory about Zabzee. As a result, presenting researchers argued the same as. That is, they interpret early theory about difference of nature between human and animal in Kim Changhyob. they interpret about the same of nature between human and animal in it. However, Kim Changhyob wrote difference of nature between human and animal in Shanguzaezungyongmunmok. While, he wrote difference it and the same it in Yokuonyudozaelonshabyonnokbyon. He thought the same li between human and animal. However, he thought difference hyongki them. Furthermore, He wrote difference it and the same it in Zabzee. Therefore, they had depended on Kim Changhyob. As a result, posterity scholars interpreted early theory and establishment of theory about his theory. they depended on his authority. However, he changed himself theory.

• 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.