Hints:?
本文探討了動(dòng)物是否有權(quán)利的問題。
文中52s處有破折號(hào)
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'?
動(dòng)物有權(quán)利嗎？人們通常這樣提問。這像是一個(gè)實(shí)用且具創(chuàng)新的提問方式。事實(shí)并非如此，因?yàn)檫@種問法是以人們對(duì)人的權(quán)利有一種共識(shí)為基礎(chǔ)的，而這種共識(shí)并不存在。 誠(chéng)然，根據(jù)對(duì)權(quán)利的一種看法，必然認(rèn)為動(dòng)物沒有權(quán)利。有些哲學(xué)家論證說，權(quán)利只存在于社會(huì)契約中，是責(zé)任與權(quán)益交換的一部分。因此動(dòng)物不可能有權(quán)利。懲罰吃人的老虎的想法是荒謬的。同樣，認(rèn)為老虎有權(quán)利也是荒謬的。然而，這只是一種認(rèn)識(shí)，而且是一種有爭(zhēng)議的認(rèn)識(shí)。這種認(rèn)識(shí)不僅剝奪了動(dòng)物的權(quán)利，而且也剝奪了某些人的權(quán)利，例如嬰兒，這些還不會(huì)用大腦來思考問題的下一代。此外，誰也不清楚，對(duì)于從來就不同意契約的人來說，這項(xiàng)契約又具有多大約束力，如果有人說“我不喜歡這項(xiàng)契約”，那你又如何回答呢？