翻译资格考试英语口译中级模拟题：人与动物

　　动物有权力吗?问题通常就是这样提出的。这种提法听起来似乎有助于把问题讲清楚。事实并非如此，因为这种问法是以人们对人的权利有一种共识为基础的，而这种共识并不存在。

　　诚然，根据对权利的一种看法，必然认为，这只是一种认识，而且是一种有争议的认识。这种认识不仅剥夺了动物的权利，而且也剥夺了某些人的权利，例如婴儿，他们是不会用脑力来思考问题的未来一代人。此外，谁也不清楚，对于从来就不同意契约的人来说，这项契约又有多少约束力，因为有人要是说“我不喜欢这项契约”，那你又如何作答呢?

　　问题的症结是，如果人们对人的权利没有一致的看法，那么争论动物的权利是徒劳无益的?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，要么完全冷漠无情。这是一处错误的选择。最好换一种更为根本性的提法:我们对待动物的同情感用到关心动物的身上。

　　许多人否认这种提法。这类人持极端看法，认为人与动物在各相关方面都不相同，对待动物无须考虑道德问题。任何关心动物疾苦的想法都是错误的，因为它把应该用来关心其他人的同情感用到关心动物的身上。

　　这种观点认为，折磨猴子从道义上讲无异于劈柴。这种看法似乎是大胆的“逻辑推理”。实际上，这种看法是非常肤浅的，因为它逻辑混乱，所以应该摒弃。道德推理的最初级形式，和学习爬行的论理一样，是针对自身利益去权衡他人利益。这就需要同情心和将心比心的想像力，没有这两点就无法用道德观念来进行思考。看到动物受苦足以使大多数人产生同情感。这种反应并不错，这是人类用道德观念进行推理的本能在起作用。这种本能应该得到鼓励，而不应遭到嘲笑。

　　参考译文

　　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.