Hints: 
本文探讨了动物是否有权利的问题。
文中52s处有破折号
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'?
动物有权利吗？人们通常这样提问。这像是一个实用且具创新的提问方式。事实并非如此，因为这种问法是以人们对人的权利有一种共识为基础的，而这种共识并不存在。 诚然，根据对权利的一种看法，必然认为动物没有权利。有些哲学家论证说，权利只存在于社会契约中，是责任与权益交换的一部分。因此动物不可能有权利。惩罚吃人的老虎的想法是荒谬的。同样，认为老虎有权利也是荒谬的。然而，这只是一种认识，而且是一种有争议的认识。这种认识不仅剥夺了动物的权利，而且也剥夺了某些人的权利，例如婴儿，这些还不会用大脑来思考问题的下一代。此外，谁也不清楚，对于从来就不同意契约的人来说，这项契约又具有多大约束力，如果有人说“我不喜欢这项契约”，那你又如何回答呢？