2. 考研
  3. 动物的权利问题 ——1997年英译汉及详解 Do animals have rights? This is how the question is usually put. It sounds like a useful, ground-clearing

动物的权利问题 ——1997年英译汉及详解 Do animals have rights? This is how the question is usually put. It sounds like a useful, ground-clearing

admin2017-06-26  23
问题 动物的权利问题
——1997年英译汉及详解
Do animals have rights? This is how the question is usually put. It sounds like a useful, ground-clearing way to start.【F1】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.【F2】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.【F3】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.【F4】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.【F5】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.
【F3】
选项
答案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动物，要么完全冷漠无情。
解析 本句考查的重点是：it的指代，省略结构和泛指代词的翻译。 该句的主干是It leads the discussion to extremes…it invites you to think that…。It承接上文指一种观点、一种说法，所以实际可译为“这种说法”。英语中的冒号和汉语的冒号功能相似．都表示下文是上文的说明。在这里，冒号表示的是extremes的内容。冒号后的主干部分是：it invites you to think that…。that引导的宾语从句中含有一个省略了关系代词的定语从句humans extend to other humans修饰consideration，此外还有一个either…or…的并列结构，一般译成“要么…要么…”。注意并列结构的后一部分经常会承前省略，如：本句中的or with no consideration at all就是or animals should be treatedwith no consideration at all的省略，在翻译时为了表意清楚应翻译出来。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/LxbZ777K
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)