Text7

Animalrightsistheconceptthatallorsomeanimalsareentitledtopossesstheirownlives，andthatanimalsaredeservingofmoralrightstoprotecttheirautonomyandwellbeing。Theanimalrightsviewrejectstheconceptthatanimalsaremerelycapitalgoodsorpropertyintendedforthebenefitofhumans。Theconceptisoftenconfusedwithanimalwelfare，whichisthephilosophythattakescrueltytowardsanimalsandanimalsufferingintoaccount，butthatdoesnotnecessarilyassignspecificmoralrightstothem。

Theanimalrightsphilosophydoesnotnecessarilymaintainthathumanandnon－humananimalsareequal。Forexample，animalrightsadvocatesdonotcallforvotingrightsforchickens。Somealsowouldmakeadistinctionbetweensentientorself－awareanimalsandlowerlifeforms，withthebeliefthatonlyanimalswithself－awarenessshouldbeaffordedtherighttopossesstheirownlivesandbodies，withoutregardtohowtheyarevaluedbyhumans。Otherswouldextendthisrighttoallanimals，eventhosewithoutdevelopednervoussystemsorconsciousness。Theymaintainthatanyhumanorhumaninstitutionsthatcommoditizesanimalsforfood，entertainment，clothing，scientifictesting，orforanyotherpurpose，infringesupontheirfundamentalrightstopossessthemselvesandtopursuetheirownends，which，therefore，isunethical。

Ofcourse，thisargumentassumesthataparticularspeciesorindividualanimaliscapableof“havingends”whichitiscapableof“pursuing”inanymeaningfulmanner。Fewpeoplewoulddenythatothergreatapesarehighlycognitiveanimalswhocanreflectontheirownconditionandgoalsandcanbecomefrustratedwhentheirfreedomsareseverelycurtailed。Incontrast，manyotheranimals，likejellyfish，haveonlyextremelysimplenervoussystems，andarelittlemorethansimpleautomata，capableonlyofsimplereflexesbutincapableofformulatingany“endstotheiractions”or“planstopursue”them，andequallyunabletonoticewhethertheyareincaptivityorfree。BythecriteriathatBiologistsuse，jellyfishareundeniablyanimals，whilefroman“animalrights”perspective，itisquestionablewhethertheyshouldnotratherbeconsidered“vegetables”。Clearly，merelybeingaliveisnotenoughtobeaccorded“rights”，asnoonehasyetseriouslyproposedthatplantsshouldbeaccordedrights。Thereisasyetnoconsensuswithregardstowhichqualitiesmakealivingorganisman“animalintheanimalrightssense”。

参考译文：

46。动物权利的概念经常与动物福利相混淆，关于动物福利的观点会考虑残害动物和动物痛苦等问题，但它不一定赋予动物具体的道德权利。

47。有些人还在有知觉力或者有自我意识的动物与更为低级的生命形式之间划清界线，相信只有具有自我意识的动物才能享有拥有自己生命和身体的权利，而不用考虑人类如何对待它们。

48。他们坚持认为，任何把动物商品化的个人或者机构，如把动物用于食物、娱乐、服饰、科学试验或者其他任何目的，都是对拥有自己、追求自己的目标等动物基本权利的侵犯，因此是不道德的。

49。按照生物学家使用的标准，海蜇毫无疑问属于动物之列，而从“动物权利”角度来看，是否不该把它们看作“蔬菜”是值得怀疑的。

50。关于哪些品质使一种活的生命成为“动物权利意义上的动物”，到现在还没有达成一致意见。