2. 外语
  3. Do animals have fights? This is how the question is usually put. It seems a useful, ground-clearing way to start.【61】 Actually,

Do animals have fights? This is how the question is usually put. It seems a useful, ground-clearing way to start.【61】 Actually,

admin2010-06-30  77
问题      Do animals have fights? This is how the question is usually put. It seems a useful, ground-clearing way to start.【61】 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. 【62】 So, 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 consent to it. How do you answer 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. 【63】 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.【64】 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 equal 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 re quires 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. 【65】 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.
【61】
选项
答案事实并非如此，因为这种问法是以人们对人的权利有共同认识为前提的，离开了这个前提，这种共同认识就不存在了。
解析 这是一个带定语从句的主语从句，形式主语it指代真正的主语，放在句首。human rights是which的先行词，which后面的句子修饰human right，做它的定语。assume意为“假定”。
转载请注明原文地址:https://www.kaotiyun.com/show/RJJd777K
本试题收录于： 公共英语四级笔试题库公共英语（PETS）分类
0

公共英语四级笔试

公共英语（PETS）

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)