2. 建筑工程
  3. Do animals have rights? This is how the

Do animals have rights? This is how the

Loveyou2020-05-20  15
问题 Do animals have rights? This is how the question is usually put. It sounds like a useful, ground-clearing way to start. 1) Actually, it isn’t, because it assumes that there is an agreed account of human rights, which is something the world does not have.　　On one view of rights, to be sure, it necessarily follows that animals have none. 2) Some philosophers argue that rights exist only within a social contract, as part of an exchange of duties and entitlements.Therefore, animals cannot have rights. The idea of punishing a tiger that kills somebody is absurd, for exactly the same reason, so is the idea that tigers have rights. However, this is only one account, and by no means an uncontested one. It denies rights not only to animals but also to some people—for instance to infants, the mentally incapable and future generations. In addition, it is unclear what force a contract can have for people who never consented to it, how do you reply to somebody who says “I don’t like this contract”?　　The point is this: without agreement on the rights of people, arguing about the rights of animals is fruitless. 3) It leads the discussion to extremes at the outset: it invites you to think that animals should be treated either with the consideration humans extend to other humans, or with no consideration at all.This is a false choice. Better to start with another, more fundamental, question: is the way we treat animals a moral issue at all?　　Many deny it. 4) Arguing from the view that humans are different from animals in every relevant respect, extremists of this kind think that animals lie outside the area of moral choice.Any regard for the suffering of animals is seen as a mistake—a sentimental displacement of feeling that should properly be directed to other humans.　　This view which holds that torturing a monkey is morally equivalent to chopping wood, may seem bravely “logical.” In fact it is simply shallow: the confused center is right to reject it. The most elementary form of moral reasoning—the ethical equivalent of learning to crawl—is to weigh others’ interests against one’s own. This in turn requires sympathy and imagination: without which there is no capacity for moral thought. To see an animal in pain is enough, for most, to engage sympathy. 5) When that happens, it is not a mistake: it is mankind’s instinct for moral reasoning in action, an instinct that should be encouraged rather than laughed at.
选项
答案
解析（1）事实并非如此，因为这种问法是以人们对人的权利有共同认识为基础的，而这种共同认识并不存在。　　【解析】本题需要注意对两个it的翻译，第一个it指的是前文的内容，并且该句开头提到actually（实际上），因此Actually, it isn’t应译为“事实并非如此”，第二个it指的是Do animals have rights?这一提问，因此应译为“这种问法”。（2）有些哲学家论证说，权利只存在在于社会契约中，是责任与权益相交换的一部分。　　【解析】该句中social contract指“社会契约”；as part of an exchange of duties and entitlements中的as为介词，意为“作为”，该介词短语是对rights的修饰。entitlement应得权益；授权。（3）这种说法从一开始就将讨论引向两个极端，它使人们认为应这样对待动物：要么像对人类自身一样关切体谅，要么完全冷漠无情。　　【解析】该句开头的it指的是前文中提到的动物权利，因此此处译为“这种说法”；at the outset一开始，当初。此处的invite不能取其平常“邀请”的意思，而应根据上下文译为“使，让”。（4）这类人持极端看法，认为人与动物在各相关方面都不相同，对待动物无须考虑道德问题。　　【解析】that引导的从句that humans are different from animals in every relevant respect为view的同位语；in every respect在各方面。（5）这种反应并不错，这是人类用道德观念进行推理的本能在起作用，这种本能应得到鼓励，而不应遭到嘲弄。　　【解析】该题需要注意代词that的指代，即上文中提到的看到动物痛苦时人们的反应，因此应译为“这种反应”。
转载请注明原文地址:https://ti.zuoweng.com/ti/BQVpKKKQ
相关试题推荐
    随机试题