一、真題文章（1997年）
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.
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.
二、譯文
動(dòng)物有權(quán)利嗎？人們常常這樣問。這種問題聽起來很有價(jià)值、很清楚。
事實(shí)并非如此，因?yàn)檫@種問法是以人們對(duì)人的權(quán)利有共同認(rèn)識(shí)為基礎(chǔ)的，而這種共同認(rèn)識(shí)并不存在。
當(dāng)然，就一種權(quán)利觀而言，動(dòng)物當(dāng)然沒有權(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)利相交換的一部分。因而動(dòng)物沒有權(quán)利。懲罰一只咬死人的老虎，這種想法是可笑的。出于同樣的原因，認(rèn)為老虎有權(quán)利的想法也是可笑的。但是，這只是一種觀點(diǎn)而已，而且這種觀點(diǎn)并非毫無爭議，因?yàn)樗粌H否認(rèn)了動(dòng)物權(quán)利，并且還否認(rèn)了某些人的權(quán)利，；例如：嬰兒——沒有思考能力的人、未來的一代。此外，還沒有弄明白的是對(duì)于那些從來不同意訂立契約的人來說，契約有什么約束力呢？如果一個(gè)人說"我不喜歡這個(gè)契約"，你該怎樣回答呢？
關(guān)鍵的問題是，如果對(duì)人的權(quán)利沒有共同的認(rèn)識(shí)，那么討論動(dòng)物的權(quán)利是毫無結(jié)果的。這種說法從一開始就將討論引向兩個(gè)極端。它使人們認(rèn)為當(dāng)這樣對(duì)待動(dòng)物：要么像對(duì)人類自身一樣關(guān)心體諒，要么完全冷漠無情。這兩種極端都不可取。我們?cè)賮韱栆粋€(gè)更基本的問題：我們這樣對(duì)待動(dòng)物到底屬不屬于道德問題？
許多人否認(rèn)這一點(diǎn)。這類人持極端看法，認(rèn)為人與動(dòng)物在各相關(guān)方面都不相同，因此對(duì)待動(dòng)物無須考慮道德問題。他們認(rèn)為對(duì)動(dòng)物遭受的痛苦表示任何關(guān)心都是錯(cuò)誤的，這是一種多愁善感的情緒轉(zhuǎn)移，而這種情緒轉(zhuǎn)移應(yīng)該適當(dāng)?shù)剞D(zhuǎn)到其他人身上。
按照這種觀點(diǎn)，折磨猴子從道德上講相當(dāng)于砍柴。這種觀點(diǎn)看起來很符合邏輯，而事實(shí)上卻很膚淺。道德推理最基本的形式，相當(dāng)于人剛學(xué)爬的階段，就是權(quán)衡他人與自己的利益。這反過來就需要同情心和想象力。沒有同情心與想象力，就沒有道德思維的能力。對(duì)大多數(shù)人來說，看到動(dòng)物痛苦，足以引起他們的同情。這種反應(yīng)并沒有錯(cuò)，這是人類用道德觀念進(jìn)行推理的本能在起作用。這種本能應(yīng)得到鼓勵(lì)而不是遭到嘲弄。三、考研核心詞匯
philosopher / fi5lCsEfE / n. 哲學(xué)家， 哲人
[例] a moral philosopher 倫理學(xué)家
[派生] philosophic / 7filE5sCfik / adj. 哲學(xué)的， 賢明的
argue / 5B：^ju： / vi. 爭論， 辯論 vt. 說服
[例] He argued with Mary about the best place for a holiday.
他和瑪麗爭論度假的地方。
[同義] bicker， object；persuade ， reason
[派生] argument / 5B：^jumEnt / n. 爭論， 辯論， 論據(jù)， 論點(diǎn)， ～ （for， against）， 意見
exist / i^5zist / vi. 存在， 生存， 生活， 繼續(xù)存在
[例] The Roman Empire existed for several centuries.
羅馬帝國存在了好幾個(gè)世紀(jì)。
[同義] be ，live， occur ， prevail ， stand
[派生] existence / i^5zistEns / n. 存在， 實(shí)在， 生活， 存在物， 實(shí)在物
absurd / Eb5sE：d / adj. 荒謬的， 可笑的
[例] Their request is absurd. 他們的要求是荒謬的。
[同義] foolish， impossible， ludicrous， ridiculous
[反義] rational / 5rAFEnl / adj. 理性的， 合理的， 推理的 n. [數(shù)]有理數(shù)
[派生] absurdity / Eb5sE：diti / n. 荒謬， 謬論
fruitless / 5fru：tlis / adj. 不結(jié)果實(shí)的
[例] The search proved fruitless. 搜尋沒有結(jié)果。
[反義] fruitful / 5fru：tful / adj. 果實(shí)結(jié)得多的， 多產(chǎn)的， 富有成效的
[派生] fruitlessly / 5fru：tlisli / adv. 徒勞地， 無益地
displacement / dis5pleismEnt / n. 1移置， 轉(zhuǎn)移2取代， 置換， 位移3 排水量
[例] excessive displacement 過大位移
[派生] displace / dis5pleis / vt. 移置， 轉(zhuǎn)移， 取代， 置換 v. 轉(zhuǎn)移
chop / tFCp / n. 1砍2排骨3官?。簧虡?biāo) vt. 剁碎， 砍， （風(fēng)浪）突
[例] The old man chopped the block of wood in two with a single blow.
這老頭一斧頭把木塊劈成兩半。
[同義] cleave ， cut ， sever
[派生] chopping / 5tFCpiN / adj. 波浪洶涌的， 碩大強(qiáng)健的
ethical / 5eWikEl / adj. 1與倫理有關(guān)2民族的， 民族特有的
[例] I oughtn't to do that， it's not ethical.
我不該做那件事，它是不合乎道德的。
[派生] ethic / 5eWik / n. 道德規(guī)范， 倫理
instinct / 5instiNkt / n. 本能
[例] Birds learn to fly by instinct. 鳥學(xué)飛出自本能。
[派生] instinctual / in5stiNktFuEl / adj. 本能的
instinctive / In5stINktIv / adj. 本能的
四、強(qiáng)化練習(xí)
1. Some analysts _______that the recent market rise has been caused by investors' blind faith in bank and technology shares.
A. quiz B. decline C. argue D. refuse
2. We never went anywhere truly exotic during October because， unlike the insanity here where a billion people squeeze onto the trains， this holiday didn't_______ for adults unless requested： days off are more liberally applicable in Britain.
A. exist B. rage C. compare D. raise
3. Thankfully the Chinese government has seen how _______ this policy was， and now foreigners and Chinese pay the same to get into parks， museums， monuments and fairgrounds.
A. wonderful B. absurd C. wise D. ironic
4. Retailing Association and Shenzhen Banking Association， which represents 17 banks， proved ________after the banks refused to adopt any concrete measures.
A. random B. readilyC. fruitless D. rear
5. "Ours is a world of nuclear giants and________ infants. We know more about war than we know about peace， more about killing than we know about living."——General Omar Bradley
A. ethical B. eternalC. elastic D. flexible
答案： CABCA
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.
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.
二、譯文
動(dòng)物有權(quán)利嗎？人們常常這樣問。這種問題聽起來很有價(jià)值、很清楚。
事實(shí)并非如此，因?yàn)檫@種問法是以人們對(duì)人的權(quán)利有共同認(rèn)識(shí)為基礎(chǔ)的，而這種共同認(rèn)識(shí)并不存在。
當(dāng)然，就一種權(quán)利觀而言，動(dòng)物當(dāng)然沒有權(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)利相交換的一部分。因而動(dòng)物沒有權(quán)利。懲罰一只咬死人的老虎，這種想法是可笑的。出于同樣的原因，認(rèn)為老虎有權(quán)利的想法也是可笑的。但是，這只是一種觀點(diǎn)而已，而且這種觀點(diǎn)并非毫無爭議，因?yàn)樗粌H否認(rèn)了動(dòng)物權(quán)利，并且還否認(rèn)了某些人的權(quán)利，；例如：嬰兒——沒有思考能力的人、未來的一代。此外，還沒有弄明白的是對(duì)于那些從來不同意訂立契約的人來說，契約有什么約束力呢？如果一個(gè)人說"我不喜歡這個(gè)契約"，你該怎樣回答呢？
關(guān)鍵的問題是，如果對(duì)人的權(quán)利沒有共同的認(rèn)識(shí)，那么討論動(dòng)物的權(quán)利是毫無結(jié)果的。這種說法從一開始就將討論引向兩個(gè)極端。它使人們認(rèn)為當(dāng)這樣對(duì)待動(dòng)物：要么像對(duì)人類自身一樣關(guān)心體諒，要么完全冷漠無情。這兩種極端都不可取。我們?cè)賮韱栆粋€(gè)更基本的問題：我們這樣對(duì)待動(dòng)物到底屬不屬于道德問題？
許多人否認(rèn)這一點(diǎn)。這類人持極端看法，認(rèn)為人與動(dòng)物在各相關(guān)方面都不相同，因此對(duì)待動(dòng)物無須考慮道德問題。他們認(rèn)為對(duì)動(dòng)物遭受的痛苦表示任何關(guān)心都是錯(cuò)誤的，這是一種多愁善感的情緒轉(zhuǎn)移，而這種情緒轉(zhuǎn)移應(yīng)該適當(dāng)?shù)剞D(zhuǎn)到其他人身上。
按照這種觀點(diǎn)，折磨猴子從道德上講相當(dāng)于砍柴。這種觀點(diǎn)看起來很符合邏輯，而事實(shí)上卻很膚淺。道德推理最基本的形式，相當(dāng)于人剛學(xué)爬的階段，就是權(quán)衡他人與自己的利益。這反過來就需要同情心和想象力。沒有同情心與想象力，就沒有道德思維的能力。對(duì)大多數(shù)人來說，看到動(dòng)物痛苦，足以引起他們的同情。這種反應(yīng)并沒有錯(cuò)，這是人類用道德觀念進(jìn)行推理的本能在起作用。這種本能應(yīng)得到鼓勵(lì)而不是遭到嘲弄。三、考研核心詞匯
philosopher / fi5lCsEfE / n. 哲學(xué)家， 哲人
[例] a moral philosopher 倫理學(xué)家
[派生] philosophic / 7filE5sCfik / adj. 哲學(xué)的， 賢明的
argue / 5B：^ju： / vi. 爭論， 辯論 vt. 說服
[例] He argued with Mary about the best place for a holiday.
他和瑪麗爭論度假的地方。
[同義] bicker， object；persuade ， reason
[派生] argument / 5B：^jumEnt / n. 爭論， 辯論， 論據(jù)， 論點(diǎn)， ～ （for， against）， 意見
exist / i^5zist / vi. 存在， 生存， 生活， 繼續(xù)存在
[例] The Roman Empire existed for several centuries.
羅馬帝國存在了好幾個(gè)世紀(jì)。
[同義] be ，live， occur ， prevail ， stand
[派生] existence / i^5zistEns / n. 存在， 實(shí)在， 生活， 存在物， 實(shí)在物
absurd / Eb5sE：d / adj. 荒謬的， 可笑的
[例] Their request is absurd. 他們的要求是荒謬的。
[同義] foolish， impossible， ludicrous， ridiculous
[反義] rational / 5rAFEnl / adj. 理性的， 合理的， 推理的 n. [數(shù)]有理數(shù)
[派生] absurdity / Eb5sE：diti / n. 荒謬， 謬論
fruitless / 5fru：tlis / adj. 不結(jié)果實(shí)的
[例] The search proved fruitless. 搜尋沒有結(jié)果。
[反義] fruitful / 5fru：tful / adj. 果實(shí)結(jié)得多的， 多產(chǎn)的， 富有成效的
[派生] fruitlessly / 5fru：tlisli / adv. 徒勞地， 無益地
displacement / dis5pleismEnt / n. 1移置， 轉(zhuǎn)移2取代， 置換， 位移3 排水量
[例] excessive displacement 過大位移
[派生] displace / dis5pleis / vt. 移置， 轉(zhuǎn)移， 取代， 置換 v. 轉(zhuǎn)移
chop / tFCp / n. 1砍2排骨3官?。簧虡?biāo) vt. 剁碎， 砍， （風(fēng)浪）突
[例] The old man chopped the block of wood in two with a single blow.
這老頭一斧頭把木塊劈成兩半。
[同義] cleave ， cut ， sever
[派生] chopping / 5tFCpiN / adj. 波浪洶涌的， 碩大強(qiáng)健的
ethical / 5eWikEl / adj. 1與倫理有關(guān)2民族的， 民族特有的
[例] I oughtn't to do that， it's not ethical.
我不該做那件事，它是不合乎道德的。
[派生] ethic / 5eWik / n. 道德規(guī)范， 倫理
instinct / 5instiNkt / n. 本能
[例] Birds learn to fly by instinct. 鳥學(xué)飛出自本能。
[派生] instinctual / in5stiNktFuEl / adj. 本能的
instinctive / In5stINktIv / adj. 本能的
四、強(qiáng)化練習(xí)
1. Some analysts _______that the recent market rise has been caused by investors' blind faith in bank and technology shares.
A. quiz B. decline C. argue D. refuse
2. We never went anywhere truly exotic during October because， unlike the insanity here where a billion people squeeze onto the trains， this holiday didn't_______ for adults unless requested： days off are more liberally applicable in Britain.
A. exist B. rage C. compare D. raise
3. Thankfully the Chinese government has seen how _______ this policy was， and now foreigners and Chinese pay the same to get into parks， museums， monuments and fairgrounds.
A. wonderful B. absurd C. wise D. ironic
4. Retailing Association and Shenzhen Banking Association， which represents 17 banks， proved ________after the banks refused to adopt any concrete measures.
A. random B. readilyC. fruitless D. rear
5. "Ours is a world of nuclear giants and________ infants. We know more about war than we know about peace， more about killing than we know about living."——General Omar Bradley
A. ethical B. eternalC. elastic D. flexible
答案： CABCA