题目内容
Often called the intellectual leader of the animal-rights movement, Regan "is the foremost philosopher in this country in the field of the moral status of nonrational animals," says Bryan. Regan has lectured from Stockholm to Melbourne about the importance of recognizing animals as part of the evolving field of ethics. His books are widely acknowledged as having cemented the roots of the modern animal rights movement in academia.To be sure, vegetarianism dates back to Plato and Plutarch. But society viewed animals largely as properties, until Regan and a handful of other philosophers pushed animal-rights issues into the academic mainstream. Indeed, this academic focus has dramatically altered how Americans approach the ethics of husbandry, some observers say. Once-radical ideas have been firmly woven into society.Regan envisions a type of "bill of rights" for animals, including the abandonment of pet ownership, elimination of a meat-based diet, and new standards for biomedical research on animals. Essentially, he wants to establish a new kind of solidarity with animals, and stop animal husbandry altogether. "In addition to the visible achievements and changes, there"s been what I might call an invisible revolution taking place, and that revolution is the seriousness with which the issue of animal rights is taken in the academy and in higher education," Regan says.But with Regan planning to retire in December, a growing number of farmers, doctors, and others are questioning the sustainability of his ideas. Increasingly, Americans who feel their rights have become secondary to animals" rights are speaking out against a wave of arson attacks on farmers and pies thrown in the faces of researchers. Radical groups, with sometimes-violent tactics, have been accused of scaring farmers away from speaking up for traditional agrarian values. Indeed, tensions are only rising between animal-rights activists and groups that have traditionally used the land with an eye toward animals" overall welfare, not their "right" to be happy or to live long lives.The controversy around Regan is heightened by the fact that he"s no pacifist. He says he believes it"s OK to break the law for a greater purpose. He calls it the "greater-evil doctrine," the idea that there"s moral hierarchy to crime. "I think that you can win in court, and that"s what I tell people," Regan says. The shift in the level of respect has been "seismic," he says. "Contrary to what a lot of people think, there really has been a recognition that there are some things that human beings should not be permitted to do to animals. Where the human heart has grown is in the recognition of what is to be prohibited." All of the following are mentioned as Regan"s concepts of animal rights movement except ______
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
(中国农业大学2007—2008年度秋季学期期末考试试题)沿程阻力系数λ的大小只取决于流体的流动状态。
Scientists had until very recently believed that there were around 100,000 human genes, available to make each and every one of us in our splendid diversity. Now, the two rival teams decoding the book of life, have each found that instead there are only somewhere between 30,000 and 40,000 genes. So that grand panjandrum, the human, may not manage to boast twice as many genes as that microscopic nowhere-worm, with its 18,000 genes, the nematode. Even the fruit fly, considered so negligible that even the most extreme of animal rights activists don"t kick up a fuss about its extensive use in genetic experimentation, has 16,000 genes. Not for the first time it has to be admitted that it"s a funny old world, and that we humans are the beings who make it such.Without understanding in the least what the scientific implications of this discovery might be, anybody with the smallest curiosity about people—and that"s pretty much all of us—can see that it is pretty significant. The most obvious conclusion to be drawn from the limited number of genes available to programme a human is that biological determination goes so far and no further. Human complexity, on this information, can be best explained in the manner it looks to be best explained before scientific evidence becomes involved at all. In other words, in the nature versus nurture debate, the answer, thankfully, is "both".Why is this so important Because it should mean that we can accept one another"s differences more easily, and help each other when appropriate. Nurture does have a huge part to play in human destiny. Love can transform humans. Trust can make a difference. Second chances are worth trying. Life, to a far greater extent than science thought up until now, is what we make it. One day we may know exactly what we can alter and what we cannot. Knowing that there is a great deal that we can alter or improve, as well as a great deal that we must accept and value for its own sake, makes the human journey progressive rather than deterministic, complex and open, rather than simple and unchangeable.For no one can suggest that 30,000 genes don"t give the human race much room for manoeuvre. Look how many tunes, after all, we"re able to squeeze out of eight notes. But it surely must give the lie to the rather sinister belief that has been gaining credence in the West that there is a hard-wired, no-prisoners-taken, gene for absolutely everything, and that whole sections of the population can be labelled as "stupid" or "lazy" or "criminal" or somehow or other sub-human. Instead, like the eight notes which can only make music (albeit in astounding diversity), the 30,000 genes can only make people. The rest is up to US. The analogy to musical notes is used to make the point that ______
Imagine a classroom where the instructors speak a foreign language and the students can"t take notes, turn to a textbook, or ask any questions. Yet at the end of the final exam, one participant may face life in jail or even death. That"s the task handed to American jurors, briefly thrown together to decide accused criminals" fate.In "A Trial by Jury," Princeton history professor D. Graham Burnett offers a rare glimpse inside jury deliberations at a New York murder trial where he served as foreman last year. According to the prosecutor, the case seems clear cut: a sexual encounter between two men went wrong. The defendant stabbed his victim 26 times, but claims he acted in self-defense, killing a man who was attempting to rape him. Burnett opens with a detailed description of the crime. He then introduces the characters and walks readers through the 10-day trial. You hear the testimony of witnesses dressed in strange clothes and find yourself put off by a growling prosecutor and the judge"s indifference. Once retreated in the jury room, confusion reigns. Most jurors don"t understand the charges or the meaning of self-defense. Uninterested jurors seem more concerned about missing appointments. On the third day, one juror runs to a bathroom in tears after exchanging curses. By the final day, nearly everyone cries.Though he"s no more familiar with the law than the other jurors, who include a vacuum-cleaner repairman and a software developer, it"s fitting that Burnett is a teacher. For us, he serves as a patient instructor, illustrating with his experience just what a remarkable and sometimes remarkably strange duty serving on a jury can be.For many citizens, jury duty is their first exposure to our justice system. Jurors discover first hand the gap between law and justice. They face two flawed versions of the same event, offered by witnesses they may not believe. We assume jurors will take their job seriously. We expect them to digest complicated definitions that leave lawyers confused.But as Burnett quickly discovers, jurors receive little help. The judge offers them no guidance about how to conduct themselves and races through his delivery of the murder charges. Only within the past decade have we finally abandoned the misconception that jurors naturally reach the right decision without any assistance. Led by Arizona, states have instituted jury reforms as simple as letting jurors take notes or obtain written copies of their instructions. It"s not clear whether these changes improve the quality of justice, but the reforms certainly ensure that jurors leave their tour of duty with better feelings about the experience. Unfortunately, such reforms hadn"t come yet to New York at the time of this trial. Nonetheless, Burnett and his fellow jurors grope toward their own solution, ultimately reaching what he describes as an "avowedly imperfect" result. The average people used to take it for granted that ______
(西南交通大学2003—2004学年第1学期期末考试试题A卷)从本质上讲，紊流应属于( )。
微信支付 
支付宝支付