Should we accept that different moral norms govern our treatment of human and nonhuman animals? In this paper I suggest that the answer is both yes and no. At the theoretical level of morality, a single, unified set of norms governs our treatment of all sentient beings. But at the practical level of morality, different sets of norms can govern our treatment of different groups in different contexts. And whether we accept that we should, say, respect rights or maximize utility at the theoretical level, we might also accept that we should apply a relatively Kantian set of norms to our treatment of humans and a relatively utilitarian set of norms to our treatment of nonhumans in practice, with many caveats. I argue that this moderate “monist in theory, hybrid in practice” view has many advantages over fully monist or hybrid alternatives.

我们是否应该接受不同的道德规范支配着我们对待人类和非人类动物的方式？在本文中，我建议答案是肯定的和否定的。在道德的理论层面，一套单一、统一的规范支配着我们对待所有众生的方式。但在道德的实践层面，不同的规范集可以支配我们在不同背景下对待不同群体的方式。无论我们是否接受我们应该尊重权利或在理论层面最大化效用，我们也可能接受我们应该将一套相对康德式的规范应用于我们对待人类的一套相对功利主义的规范应用于我们对待人类的行为。非人类在实践中，有许多警告。我认为，这种温和的“理论上一元论，实践中混合”的观点比完全一元论或混合替代方案具有许多优势。