翻譯資格考試英語(yǔ)口譯中級(jí)模擬題：人與動(dòng)物

漢譯英

動(dòng)物有權(quán)力嗎?問(wèn)題通常就是這樣提出的。這種提法聽(tīng)起來(lái)似乎有助于把問(wèn)題講清楚。事實(shí)并非如此，因?yàn)檫@種問(wèn)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，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，他們是不會(huì)用腦力來(lái)思考問(wèn)題的未來(lái)一代人。此外，誰(shuí)也不清楚，對(duì)于從來(lái)就不同意契約的人來(lái)說(shuō)，這項(xiàng)契約又有多少約束力，因?yàn)橛腥艘钦f(shuō)“我不喜歡這項(xiàng)契約”，那你又如何作答呢?

問(wèn)題的癥結(jié)是，如果人們對(duì)人的權(quán)利沒(méi)有一致的看法，那么爭(zhēng)論動(dòng)物的權(quán)利是徒勞無(wú)益的?這種說(shuō)法從一開(kāi)始就將討論引向兩個(gè)極端，它使人們認(rèn)為應(yīng)這樣對(duì)待動(dòng)物:要么像對(duì)人類(lèi)自身一樣關(guān)切體諒，要么完全冷漠無(wú)情。這是一處錯(cuò)誤的選擇。最好換一種更為根本性的提法:我們對(duì)待動(dòng)物的同情感用到關(guān)心動(dòng)物的身上。

許多人否認(rèn)這種提法。這類(lèi)人持極端看法，認(rèn)為人與動(dòng)物在各相關(guān)方面都不相同，對(duì)待動(dòng)物無(wú)須考慮道德問(wèn)題。任何關(guān)心動(dòng)物疾苦的想法都是錯(cuò)誤的，因?yàn)樗褢?yīng)該用來(lái)關(guān)心其他人的同情感用到關(guān)心動(dòng)物的身上。

這種觀點(diǎn)認(rèn)為，折磨猴子從道義上講無(wú)異于劈柴。這種看法似乎是大膽的“邏輯推理”。實(shí)際上，這種看法是非常膚淺的，因?yàn)樗壿嫽靵y，所以應(yīng)該摒棄。道德推理的最初級(jí)形式，和學(xué)習(xí)爬行的論理一樣，是針對(duì)自身利益去權(quán)衡他人利益。這就需要同情心和將心比心的想像力，沒(méi)有這兩點(diǎn)就無(wú)法用道德觀念來(lái)進(jìn)行思考?？吹絼?dòng)物受苦足以使大多數(shù)人產(chǎn)生同情感。這種反應(yīng)并不錯(cuò)，這是人類(lèi)用道德觀念進(jìn)行推理的本能在起作用。這種本能應(yīng)該得到鼓勵(lì)，而不應(yīng)遭到嘲笑。

參考譯文

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.From:examw.com/catti

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.