以下是我翻译的摘自PETA的文章，英语水平有限，翻译不足之处，请朋友们指出

欢迎转载！！！ 让身边更多的朋友加入保护动物的行列～～～

Why animal rights?

为什么动物要享有权利？

Almost all of us grew up eating meat, wearing leather, and going to circuses and zoos. Many of us bought our beloved “pets” at pet shops, had guinea pigs, and kept beautiful birds in cages. We wore wool and silk, ate McDonald’s burgers, and fished. We never considered the impact of these actions on the animals involved. For whatever reason, you are now asking the question: Why should animals have rights?

我们中的大部分人在吃肉，穿皮革，去马戏团和动物园的环境中长大。许多人在宠物店买了自己“心爱”的宠物，他们养天竺鼠，并把漂亮的鸟儿关进笼子。我们穿羊毛和丝绸，吃麦当劳的汉堡包，钓鱼。我们从来没有考虑过和我们这些行为有关的动物会有怎样的遭遇。不管为了何种的理由，现在，你有这样的疑问：“为什么动物应该享有权利？”

In his book Animal Liberation, Peter Singer states that the basic principle of equality does not require equal or identical treatment; it requires equal consideration. This is an important distinction when talking about animal rights. People often ask if animals should have rights, and quite simply, the answer is “Yes!” Animals surely deserve to live their lives free from suffering and exploitation. Jeremy Bentham, the founder of the reforming utilitarian school of moral philosophy, stated that when deciding on a being’s rights, “The question is not ‘Can they reason?’ nor ‘Can they talk?’ but ‘Can they suffer?’” In that passage, Bentham points to the capacity for suffering as the vital characteristic that gives a being the right to equal consideration. The capacity for suffering is not just another characteristic like the capacity for language or higher mathematics. All animals have the ability to suffer in the same way and to the same degree that humans do. They feel pain, pleasure, fear, frustration, loneliness, and motherly love. Whenever we consider doing something that would interfere with their needs, we are morally obligated to take them into account.

在 Perer Singer 的《动物解放》这本书中，他声明了平等的基本原则并不是要求平等或平等对待；它要求的是平等的考虑。当谈论到动物权利的时候，这是一个很重要的特征点。人们经常问到“动物是否应该享有权利？”答案显而易见是肯定的。动物的生活的确应该远离痛苦和利用。道德哲学功利主义教养院的奠基人Jeremy Bentham说，当考虑人类权利的时候，问题既不是“他们能思考么？”也不是“他们能讲话么？”而是“他们痛苦么？” 在那段声明中，Bentham指出作为生命的特性，感受痛苦的能力给予人类去考虑平等的权利。感受痛苦的能力并不像其他的特殊能力，如运用语言的能力或计算高等数学的能力。所有的动物都和人类一样能感知痛苦和知晓痛苦的程度。它们能感受痛苦，快乐，害怕，挫折，孤独还有母爱。任何时候，当我们想做一些干扰动物需求的事，我们有义务重视动物的感受。

Supporters of animal rights believe that animals have an inherent worth—a value completely separate from their usefulness to humans. We believe that every creature with a will to live has a right to live free from pain and suffering. Animal rights is not just a philosophy—it is a social movement that challenges society’s traditional view that all nonhuman animals exist solely for human use. As PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk has said, “When it comes to pain, love, joy, loneliness, and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. Each one values his or her life and fights the knife.”

动物权利的支持者认为，动物有与生俱来的价值，这个价值和动物对人类用处的价值是完全不同的两个概念。我们相信，任何生物都努力让自己的生活享有远离痛苦和苦难的权利。动物权利不仅仅是一个哲学体系——它是与认为非人类生物应该被人类所用的传统社会观念斗争的一个社会运动。作为PETA的创始人，Ingrid Newkirk 曾经说过,“当它开始感觉到痛苦，爱，欢乐，孤独，和害怕的时候，一只老鼠就等同于一只猪或一只狗，同样，也等同于一个孩子。每个人都应该反省一下自己的生活，并和餐刀做斗争。”

Only prejudice allows us to deny others the rights that we expect to have for ourselves. Whether it’s based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or species, prejudice is morally unacceptable. If you wouldn’t eat a dog, why eat a pig? Dogs and pigs have the same capacity to feel pain, but it is prejudice based on species that allows us to think of one animal as a companion and the other as dinner.

只有错误的偏见会允许我们去否认我们希望为我所用的其他生物的权利。不管它是否基于种族，性别，性别取向，或种类，偏见在思想上是完全不被接受的。如果你不吃狗肉，为什么要吃猪肉？狗和猪都同样能感受到痛苦，但基于种类上的偏见却允许我们把一方视为伴侣，另一方则作为晚餐。