沪江考研 - 一天一篇真题记单词（28-1997 翻译）

一天一篇真题记单词（28-1997 翻译）

来源：沪江论坛 | 时间：2008-07-16 | 作者：quicklearner | 阅读：376 次 | [大中小] [收藏] [划词 ] 评论 0 条

2009年考研大纲汇总专题
2009年新东方考研网络课程

【写在前面】

暑假可以说是备考的黄金时间了，如何利用好这2个月的宝贵时间，全面提升各科实力，想必是诸多考研学子最想知道的事了吧。各种备考方法纷繁复杂，备考资料五花八门，如何不让这个暑假虚度呢，如何学才能更有效率呢。我想有一个方法是大家公认的，那就是做真题。数学，英语，专业课，真题都是最宝贵的资料。一天一篇真题记单词，在推出后受到了大家的认可，当然也有很多不足之处，在上学期出了20期后，暑期版隆重推出，希望能陪伴大家度过一个充实的暑假备战时期。

【真题原文】

Do animals have rights? This is how the question is usually put. It sounds like a useful, ground-clearing way to start. 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. 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. 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. 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 there is no capacity for moral thought. To see an animal in pain is enough, for most, to engage sympathy. 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.

【单词讲解】

1.account n 理解，解释

2.social contract 社会契约

3.entitlement 权利

4.by no means 绝非

5.uncontested 没有争议

6.have force for sb 对某人有约束力

7.at the outset 在一开始，开端

8.displacement n. 1 移置, 转移 2 取代, 置换, 位移 3 排水量

9.shallow 肤浅

10.ethical adj. 1 与伦理有关 2 民族的, 民族特有的

【参考译文】

动物有权利吗？人们常常这样问。这种问题听起来很有价值、很清楚。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。

当然，就一种权利观而言，动物当然没有权利。有些哲学家论证说，权利只存在于社会契约中，是责任与权利相交换的一部分。因而动物没有权利。惩罚一只咬死人的老虎，这种想法是可笑的。出于同样的原因，认为老虎有权利的想法也是可笑的。但是，这只是一种观点而已，而且这种观点并非毫无争议，因为它不仅否认了动物权利，并且还否认了某些人的权利，；例如：婴儿——没有思考能力的人、未来的一代。此外，还没有弄明白的是对于那些从来不同意订立契约的人来说，契约有什么约束力呢？如果一个人说“我不喜欢这个契约”，你该怎样回答呢？

关键的问题是，如果对人的权利没有共同的认识，那么讨论动物的权利是毫无结果的。这种说法从一开始就将讨论引向两个极端。它使人们认为当这样对待动物：要么像对人类自身一样关心体谅，要么完全冷漠无情。这两种极端都不可取。我们最好再来问一个更基本的问题：我们这样对待动物到底属不属于道德问题？

许多人否认这一点。这类人持极端看法，认为人与动物在各相关方面都不相同，因此对待动物无须考虑道德问题。他们认为对动物遭受的痛苦表示任何关心都是错误的，这是一种多愁善感的情绪转移，而这种情绪转移应该适当地转到其他人身上。

按照这种观点，折磨猴子从道德上讲相当于砍柴。这种观点看起来很符合逻辑，而事实上却很肤浅。其核心混乱，便足以予以摒弃了。道德推理最基本的形式，相当于人刚学爬的阶段，就是权衡他人与自己的利益。这反过来就需要同情心和想象力。没有同情心与想象力，就没有道德思维的能力。对大多数人来说，看到动物痛苦，足以引起他们的同情。这种反应并没有错，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是遭到嘲弄。

【作业】

1.学习完单词后自己认真翻译原文，并将原文中红色字体部分句子的译文回帖，认真答题者奖励100HY

2.自己认真总结本篇文章的词组，长难句，可以整理在本子上（推荐），也可以跟帖总结，把每天的帖子当作你的笔记本。