单选

Passage Two

Questions arise after the vote of the environment committee of the Spanish Parliament last month to grant limited rights to our closest biological relatives, the great apes - chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans. The committee would bind Spain to the principles of the Great Ape Project, which points to apes’ human qualities, including the ability to feel fear and happiness, create tools, use languages, remember the past and plan the future. The project’s directors, Peter Singer, the Princeton ethicist, and Paola Cavalieri, an Italian philosopher, regard apes as part of a “community of equals” with humans.

If the bill passes - the news agency Reuters predicts it will - it would become illegal in Spain to kill apes except in self-defense. Torture, including in medical experiments, and arbitrary imprisonment, including for circuses or films, would be forbidden. The 300 apes in Spanish zoos would not be freed, but better conditions would be mandated.

What’s intriguing about the committee’s action is that it puts two sliding scales together that are normally not allowed to slide against each other: how much kinship humans feel for which animals, and just which “human rights” each human deserves.

We like to think of these as absolutes: that there are distinct lines between humans and animals, and that certain “human” rights are unalienable. But we’re kidding ourselves.

In an interview, Mr. Singer described just such calculations behind the Great Ape Project: he left out lesser apes like gibbons because scientific evidence of human qualities is weaker, and he demanded only rights that he felt all humans were usually offered, such as freedom from torture - rather than, say, rights to education or medical care. Depending on how it is counted, the DNA of chimpanzees is 95 percent to 98.7 percent the same as that of humans.

Nonetheless, the law treats all animals as lower orders. Human Rights Watch has no position on apes in Spain and has never had an internal debate about who is human, said Joseph Saunders, deputy program director. Meanwhile, even in democracies, the law accords diminished rights to many humans: children, prisoners, the insane, the senile. Teenagers may not vote, courts can order surgery or force-feeding. Spain does not envision endowing apes with all rights: to drive, to bear arms and so on. Rather, their status would be akin to that of children.

Questions 6-10 are based on Passage Two.

The environment committee of the Spanish Parliament voted to give limited rights to apes, because ______.

  • A.apes are protected by law
  • B.apes share some human qualities
  • C.apes are maltreated by people
  • D.apes have very high intelligence
参考答案
您可能感兴趣的试题

Excellencies, you are the United Nations. The staff who were killed and injured in the attack on our Baghdad headquarters were your staff. You had given them a mandate to assist the suffering Iraqi people, and to help Iraq recover its national sovereignty.

 (46. In future, not only in Iraq but also wherever the United Nations is engaged, we must take more effective measures to protect the security of our staff.) I count on your full support - legal, political and financial.

Subject to security considerations, the United Nations system is prepared to play its full part in working for a satisfactory outcome in Iraq, and to do so as part of an effort by the whole international community, pulling together on the basis of a sound and viable policy. (47. If it takes extra time and patience to make a policy that is collective, coherent and workable, then I for one would regard that time as well spent. )Indeed, this is how we must approach all the many pressing crises that confront us today.

Three years ago, when you came here for the Millennium Summit, we had a shared vision of global solidarity and collective security, expressed in the Millennium Declaration. But recent events have called that consensus in question.

(48. All of us know“ there are new threats that must be faced—or, perhaps, old threats in new and dangerous combinations: new forms of terrorism, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.) But, while some consider these threats as self-evidently the main challenge to world peace and security, others feel more immediately threatened by small arms employed in civil conflict, or by so-called “soft threats” such as the persistence of extreme poverty, the disparity of income between and within societies, the spread of infectious diseases, or climate change and environmental degradation.

In truth, we do not have to choose. The United Nations must confront all these threats and challenges—new and old, “hard” and “soft”. It must be fully engaged in the struggle for development and poverty eradication, starting with the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals; in the struggle to protect our common environment and in the struggle for human rights; democracy and good governance. In fact, all these struggles are linked. We now see, with chilling clarity, that a world where many millions of people endure brutal oppression and extreme misery will never be fully secure, even for its most privileged inhabitants.

(49. Yet the “hard” threats, such as terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, are real, and cannot be ignored. Terrorism is not a problem only to rich countries.) Weapons of mass destruction do not threaten only the western or northern world. Where we disagree, it seems, is on how we respond to these threats.

(50. Since this Organization was founded, States have generally sought to deal with threats to the peace through containment and deterrence, by a system based on collective security and the United Nations Charter.)

¥

订单号:

遇到问题请联系在线客服

订单号:

遇到问题请联系在线客服