首页
外语
计算机
考研
公务员
职业资格
财经
工程
司法
医学
专升本
自考
实用职业技能
登录
外语
Sometime soon, according to animal-right activities, a great ape will testify in an American courtroom. Speaking through a voice
Sometime soon, according to animal-right activities, a great ape will testify in an American courtroom. Speaking through a voice
admin
2010-07-19
43
问题
Sometime soon, according to animal-right activities, a great ape will testify in an American courtroom. Speaking through a voice synthesizer, or perhaps in sign language, the lucky ape will argue that it has a fundamental right to liberty. "This is going to be a very important case." Duke University law Prof. William Reppy Jr. told the New York Times.
Reppy concedes that apes can talk only at the level of a human 4-year-old, so they may not be ready to discuss abstractions like oppression and freedom. Just last month, one ape did manage to say through a synthesizer: "Please buy me a hamburger." That may not sound like crucial testimony, but lawyers think that the spectacle of an ape saying anything at all in court may change a lot of minds about the status of animals as property.
One problem is that apes probably won’t be able to convince judges that they know right from wrong, or that they intend to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Since they are not persons, they don’t even have legal standing to sue. No problem, says Steven Wise, who taught animal law for 10 years at Vermont law school and is now teaching Harvard law school’s first course in the subject. He says lawyers should be able to use slavery-era statutes that authorized legal nonpersons (slaves) to bring lawsuits. Gary Francione, who teaches animal law at Rutgers University, says that gorillas "should be declared to be persons under the constitution."
Unlike mainstream animal-welfare activists, radical animal-rights activists think that all animals are morally equal and have rights, though not necessarily the same rights as humans. So the law’s denial of rights to animals is simply a matter of bias-speciesism. It’s even an expression of bias to talk about protecting wildlife, since this assumes that human control and domination of other species is acceptable. These are surely far-out ideas. "Would even bacteria have rights?" asks one exasperated law professor, Richard Epstein of the University of Chicago Law School.
For the moment, the radicals want to confine the rights discussion to apes and chimps, mostly to avoid the obvious mockery about litigious lemmings, cockroach liberation, and the issue of whether a hyena eating an antelope is committing a rights violation that should be brought before the world court in the Hague. One wag wrote a poem containing the line, "Every beast within his paws/Will clutch an order to show cause."
The news is that law schools are increasingly involved in animal issues. Any radical notion that vastly inflates the concept of rights and requires a lot more litigation is apt to take root in the law schools. ("Some lawyers say they are in the field to advance their ideology, but some note that it is an area of legal practice that could be profitable," reports the New York Times.)
A dozen law schools now feature courses on animal law, and in some cases at least, the teaching seems to be a simple extension of radical activism. The course description of next spring’s "Animal Law Seminar" at Georgetown University Law Center, for instance, makes clear to students which opinions are the correct ones to have, It talks about the plight of "rightless plaintiffs" and promises to examine how and why laws "purporting to protect" animals have failed.
Ideas about humane treatment of animals are indeed changing. Many of us have changed our minds about furs, zoos, slaughterhouse techniques, and at least some forms of animal experimentation. The debate about greater concern for the animal world continues. But the alliance between the radicals and the lawyers means that, once again, an issue that ought to be taken to the people and resolved by democratic means will most likely be pre-empted by judges and lawyers. Steven Wise talks of using the courts to knock down the wall between humans and apes. Once apes have rights, he says, the status of other animals can be decided by other courts and other litigation.
The advantage of the litigation strategy is that there’s no need to sell radical ideas to the American people. There are almost no takers for the concept of "nonhuman personhood," the view of pets as slaves, or the notion that meat eating is part of "a specter of oppression" that equally afflicts minorities, women, and animals in America. You can supersede open debate by convincing a few judges to detect a "rights" issue that functions as a political trump card. The rhetoric is high-minded, but the strategy is to force change without gaining the consent of the public.
Converting every controversy into a "rights" issue is by now a knee-jerk response. Harvard Law Prof. Mary Ann Glendon, author of Rights Talk, writes about our legal culture’s "lost language of obligation." Instead of casting arguments in terms of human responsibility for the natural world, rights talkers automatically spin out tortured arguments about "rights" of animals and even about the "rights" of trees and mountains. This is how "rights talk" becomes a parody of itself. Let’s hope the lawyers and the law schools eventually get the joke. (853 words)
The mainstream animal-welfare activists would agree that ______.
选项
A、all animals are morally equal
B、all animals should have the same rights as human beings
C、all animals are not morally equal
D、some animals must have exact the same rights as humans
答案
C
解析
激进的动物权利保护者认为所有的动物在精神上是平等的,同时也应享有权利(即便是与人类不等同的权利)。这些观点,不为主流的观点所认同,故A、B、D均为错误选项。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/WklO777K
0
专业英语八级
相关试题推荐
【B1】【B2】
DemographicindicatorsshowthatAmericansinthepostwarperiodweremoreeagerthanevertoestablishfamilies.Theyquicklyb
1HarryTrumandidn’tthinkhissuccessorhadtherighttrainingtobepresident."PoorIke—itwon’tbeabitliketheArm
GypsiesareunitedonlywhentheyInhistoryhostilitytoGypsiesinEuroperesultedintheirpersecutionbyallthefollowing
AccordingtotheUNHumanDevelopmentReport,whichisthebestplaceforwomenintheworld?
Marriagemaybeaboutlove,butdivorceisabusiness.Forglobalcouples--bornindifferentcountries,marriedinathird,now
WhentheColdWarbegan,whowasthepresidentofU.S.A?
WhichofthefollowingdoesNOTbelongtotheIndo-Europeanfamily?
TheWorldHealthOrganizationsaysitsten-yearcampaigntoremoveleprosyasaworldhealthproblemhasbeensuccessful.Doctor
TheClassicalSenseofGoodGovernmentPoliticsplaysanextremelyimportantroleinhumansociety.Politicalphilosophersst
随机试题
甲公司(上市公司)是一家以家电生产为主业的大型国有企业,总资产100亿元。净资产36亿元。最近3年净资产收益率平均超过了10%,经营现金流入持续保持较高水平。甲公司董事会为开拓新的业务增长点,分散经营风险,获得更多收益,决定从留存收益中安排2亿元实施投资。
引进负压原油稳定装置中,加热后的原油经减压阀减压后气液两相进入()。
关于《国家基本医疗保险药品目录》药品,下列说法错误的是
现浇柱模板拆除顺序是()。
2019年8月,中国人民银行印发《金融科技(FinTech)发展规划(2019—2021年)》,其中提出到2021年,建立健全我国金融科技发展的“()”,进一步增强金融业科技应用能力,实现金融与科技深度融合、协调发展,明显增强人民群众对数字化、网络
某政府工程揽标,甲、乙、丙、丁公司参与投标,在标底公布以前,各公司经理分别做出推测。
2012年2月4日,私人房主陆某为建造自家的一栋四层高的民房,将工程承包给当地的包工头黄某,并签订了书面承揽合同。在黄某建好该民房前两层时,由于物价上涨,建房成本增加,陆某觉得将工程继续承包给黄某不划算,于是跟黄某解除了承揽合同,之后与黄某达成口头协议,约
在下面的活动图中,从A到J的关键路径是(24),I和J之间的活动开始的最早时间是(25)。
CAVIL:CRITICIZE::
Itissimpleenoughtosaythatsincebookshaveclasses:fiction,biography,poetry—weshouldseparatethemandtakefromeach
最新回复
(
0
)