Text 7
Animal rights is theconcept that all or some animals are entitled to possess their own lives, andthat animals are deserving of moral rights to protect their autonomy and wellbeing. The animal rights view rejects the concept that animals are merelycapital goods or property intended for the benefit of humans. (46) The conceptis often confused with animal welfare, which is the philosophy that takescruelty towards animals and animal suffering into account, but that does not necessarilyassign specific moral rights to them.
The animal rights philosophy does notnecessarily maintain that human and non-human animals are equal. For example,animal rights advocates do not call for voting rights for chickens. (47)Some also would make a distinction between sentient or self-aware animals andlower life forms, with the belief that only animals with self-awareness shouldbe afforded the right to possess their own lives and bodies, without regard tohow they are valued by humans. Others would extend this right to allanimals, even those without developed nervous systems or consciousness. (48)They maintain that any human or human institutions that commoditizes animalsfor food, entertainment, clothing, scientific testing, or for any otherpurpose, infringes upon their fundamental rights to possess themselves and topursue their own ends, which, therefore, is unethical.
Of course, this argument assumes that aparticular species or individual animal is capable of "having ends" which it iscapable of "pursuing" in any meaningful manner. Few people would deny thatother great apes are highly cognitive animals who can reflect on their owncondition and goals and can become frustrated when their freedoms are severelycurtailed. In contrast, many other animals, like jelly fish, have onlyextremely simple nervous systems, and are little more than simple automata,capable only of simple reflexes but incapable of formulating any "ends to theiractions" or "plans to pursue" them, and equally unable to notice whether theyare in captivity or free. (49) By the criteria that Biologists use, jellyfish are undeniably animals, while from an "animal rights" perspective, it isquestionable whether they should not rather be considered "vegetables". Clearly,merely being alive is not enough to be accorded "rights", as no one has yetseriously proposed that plants should be accorded rights (even though someplants are clearly worthy of protection, but that is another matter). (50)There is as yet no consensus with regards to which qualities make a livingorganism an "animal in the animal rights sense".
參考譯文
46.動物權利的概念經常與動物福利相混淆，關於動物福利的觀點會考慮殘害動物和動物痛苦等問題，但它不一定賦予動物具體的道德權利。
47.有些人還在有知覺力或者有自我意識的動物與更爲低級的生命形式之間劃清界線，相信只有具有自我意識的動物才能享有擁有自己生命和身體的權利，而不用考慮人類如何對待它們。
48.他們堅持認爲，任何把動物商品化的個人或者機構，如把動物用於食物、娛樂、服飾、科學試驗或者其他任何目的`，都是對擁有自己、追求自己的目標等動物基本權利的侵犯，因此是不道德的。
49.按照生物學家使用的標準，海蜇毫無疑問屬於動物之列，而從"動物權利"角度來看，是否不該把它們看作"蔬菜"是值得懷疑的。
50.關於哪些品質使一種活的生命成爲"動物權利意義上的動物"，到現在（至今）還沒有達成一致意見。
