Text 7

　　Animal rights is the concept that all or some animals are entitled to possess their own lives, and that animals are deserving of moral rights to protect their autonomy and well being. The animal rights view rejects the concept that animals are merely capital goods or property intended for the benefit of humans. (46) The concept is often confused with animal welfare, which is the philosophy that takes cruelty towards animals and animal suffering into account, but that does not necessarily assign specific moral rights to them.

　　The animal rights philosophy does not necessarily maintain that human and non-human animals are equal. For example, animal rights advocates do not call for voting rights for chickens. (47) Some also would make a distinction between sentient or self-aware animals and lower life forms, with the belief that only animals with self-awareness should be afforded the right to possess their own lives and bodies, without regard to how they are valued by humans. Others would extend this right to all animals, even those without developed nervous systems or consciousness. (48) They maintain that any human or human institutions that commoditizes animals for food, entertainment, clothing, scientific testing, or for any other purpose, infringes upon their fundamental rights to possess themselves and to pursue their own ends, which, therefore, is unethical.

　　Of course, this argument assumes that a particular species or individual animal is capable of “having ends” which it is capable of “pursuing” in any meaningful manner. Few people would deny that other great apes are highly cognitive animals who can reflect on their own condition and goals and can become frustrated when their freedoms are severely curtailed. In contrast, many other animals, like jelly fish, have only extremely simple nervous systems, and are little more than simple automata, capable only of simple reflexes but incapable of formulating any “ends to their actions” or “plans to pursue” them, and equally unable to notice whether they are in captivity or free. (49) By the criteria that Biologists use, jelly fish are undeniably animals, while from an “animal rights” perspective, it is questionable whether they should not rather be considered “vegetables”. Clearly, merely being alive is not enough to be accorded “rights”, as no one has yet seriously proposed that plants should be accorded rights (even though some plants are clearly worthy of protection, but that is another matter). (50) There is as yet no consensus with regards to which qualities make a living organism an “animal in the animal rights sense”.

　　參考譯文

　　46. 動物權利的概念經常與動物福利相混淆，關于動物福利的觀點會考慮殘害動物和動物痛苦等問題，但它不一定賦予動物具體的道德權利。

　　47. 有些人還在有知覺力或者有自我意識的動物與更為低級的生命形式之間劃清界線，相信只有具有自我意識的動物才能享有擁有自己生命和身體的權利，而不用考慮人類如何對待它們。

　　48. 他們堅持認為，任何把動物商品化的個人或者機構，如把動物用于食物、娛樂、服飾、科學試驗或者其他任何目的，都是對擁有自己、追求自己的目標等動物基本權利的侵犯，因此是不道德的。

　　49. 按照生物學家使用的標準，海蜇毫無疑問屬于動物之列，而從“動物權利”角度來看，是否不該把它們看作“蔬菜”是值得懷疑的。

　　50. 關于哪些品質使一種活的生命成為“動物權利意義上的動物”，到現在(至今)還沒有達成一致意見。

　　相關推薦：2009年考研英語翻譯最新模擬題及答案詳解(三)

　　　　　　　2009年考研英語第二輪復習需要注意的問題