2019年考研英语二真题翻译部分.pdfVIP

1997 年英语二翻译部分 2 1998 年英语二翻译部分 3 1999 年英语二翻译部分 4 2000 年英语二翻译部分 5 2001 年英语二翻译部分 6 2002 年英语二翻译部分 7 2003 年英语二翻译部分 8 2004 年英语二翻译部分 9 2005 年英语二翻译部分 . . . 10 2006 年英语二翻译部分 . .. .. 11 2007 年英语二翻译部分 ... 12 2008 年英语二翻译部分 . .. 13 2009 年英语二翻译部分 ... .. 14 2010 年英语二翻译部分 . .. 15 2011 年英语二翻译部分 16 2012 年英语二翻译部分 17 2013 年英语二翻译部分 18 2014 年英语二翻译部分 19 2015 年英语二翻译部分20 2016 年英语二翻译部分21 2017 年英语二翻译部分22 2018 年英语二翻译部分23 2019 年英语二翻译部分24 QQ扫一扫入 淘宝扫一扫查阅 资料 1997 年英语二翻译部分 Do animals have rights? This is how the question is usually put. It sounds like a useful, ground-clearing way to start. 71) 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. 72) 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. 73) It leads the discussion to extremes at the outset: it invites you to think that a