阅读教程四 重要文章

阅读教程四重要文章Unit one Animals and their rightsReading 1 Animal LiberationOur attitudes to animals begin to form when we are very young, and they are dominated by the fact that we begin to eat meat at an early age. Interestingly enough, many children at first refuse to eat animal flesh, and only become accustomed to it after strenuous efforts by their parents, who mistakenly believe that it is necessary for good health. Whatever the child’s initial reaction, though, the point to notice is that we eat animal flesh long before we are capable of understanding what we eat is the dead body of an animal. Thus we never make a conscious, informed decision, free from the bias that accompanies any long-establish ed habit, reinforce d by all the pressures of social conformity, to eat animal flesh. At the same time children have a natural love of animals, and our society encourages them to be affectionate towards pets and cuddly, stuffed toy animals. Form these facts stems the most distinctive characteristic of the attitude of children in our society to animals—namely, that there is not one unified attitude to animals, but two conflicting attitudes that coexist in one individual ,carefully segregated so that the inherentcontradiction between them rarely causes trouble.Not so long ago children were brought up on fairy tales in which animals, especially wolves, were pictured as cunning enemies of man. A characteristic happy ending would leave the wolf drowning in a pond, weighed down by stones which the ingenious hero had sewn in its belly while it was asleep. And in case children missed the implications of these stories they could all join hands and sing a nursery rhyme like:“Three blind mice, see how they run!They all ran after the farmer’s wifeWho cut off their tails with a carving knife.Did you ever see such a thing in your lifeAs three blind mice?”For children brought up on these stories and rhymes there was no inconsistency between what they were taught and what they are. Today, however such stories have gone out of fashion, and on the surface all is sweetness and light, so far as children’s attitudes to animals are concerned. Thereby a problem has arisen: what about the animals we eat?One response to this problem is simple evasion. The child’s affection for animals is directed towards animals that are not eaten: dogs, cats and other pets. There are the animals that anurban or suburban child is most likely to see. Cuddly, stuffed toy animals are more likely to be bars or lions than pigs or cows. When farm animals are mentioned in picture books and stories, however, evasion may become a deliberate attempt to mislead the child about the nature of modern farms, and so screen him form reality. An example of this is the popular Hallmark book Farm Animals which presents the child with pictures of hens, turkeys, cows and pigs, all surrounded by their young, with not a cage, shed or stall in sight. The text tells us that pigs “enjoy a good meal, then roll in the mud and let out a squeal!” while “Cows don’t have a thing to do, but switch their tails, eat grass and moo.” British books, like The Farm in the best selling Ladybird series, covey the same impression of rural simplicity, showing the hen running freely in an orchard with her chicks, and all the other animals living with their offspring in spacious quarters. With this kind of early reading it is not surprising that children grow up believing that even if animals “must”die to provide human beings with food, they live happily until that time comes.Recognizing the importance of the attitude we form when young, the Women’s Liberation movement has suggested changes in the stories we read to our children. They want brave princesses to rescue helpless princes occasionally. To alter thestories about animals that we real to our children will not be easy, since cruelty is no t an ideal subject for children’s stories. Yet it should be possible to avoid the more gruesome details, and still give children picture books and stories that encourage respect for animals as independent beings, and not as cute little objects that exist for our amusement and tables; and as children grow older, they can be made aware that most animals live under conditions that are not very pleasant. The difficulty will be that non-vegetarian parents are going to be reluctant to let their children learn the full story, for fear that the child’s affection for animals may disrupt family meals. Even now, one frequently hears that, on learning that animals are killed to provide meat, a friend’s child has refused to eat meat. Unfortunately this instinctive rebellion is likely to meet strong resistance from non-vegetarian parents, and most children are unable to keep their refusal in the face of opposition from parents who provide their meals and tell them that they will not grow up big and strong without meat. One hopes, as knowledge of nutrition spreads, more parents will realize that on this issue their children may be wiser than they are.Unit two Crime and PunishmentReading one The Death Penalty in the United State: Old Enough to Kill, Old Enough to Die?In the United States, 37 states currently allow capital punishment for serious crimes such as murder. Americans have always argued about the death penalty. Today, there is a serious question about this issue: Should there be a minimum age limit for executing criminals? In other words, is it right for convicted murderers who kill when they are minors, i.e. , under the age of 18, to receive the death penalty? In most countries of the world, there is no capital punishment for minors. In the United States, though, each state makes its own decision. Of the 37 states that allow the death penalty, 30 permit the execution of minors.In the state of South Carolina, a convicted murderer was given the death penalty for a crime he committed while he was a minor. In 1977, when he was 17 years old, James Terry Roach and two friends brutally murdered three people. Roach’s lawyer fought the decision to execute him. The young murderer remained on death row (a separate part of prison for convicted criminals who are sentenced to die) for ten years while his lawyer appealed to the governor. The lawyer argued that it is wrong to execute a person for a crime committed while he was aminor. In the United States, the governor of a state has the power to change a sentence from the death penalty to life in prison. Nonetheless, the governor of South Carolina refused to stop the execution. Roach was finally executed by electrocution in 1986. This is not the first time a minor was executed in South Carolina. In 1944, a 14-year-old boy died in that state’s electric chair.In Indiana, a 16-year-old girl is on death row for a crime she committed when she was 15. Paula Cooper and three friends stabbed an elderly woman to death. They robbed the old woman to get money to play video games. Cooper’s lawyer has appealed to the governor of Indiana to stop the execution because the convicted killer is very young and because she was abused in childhood. The Indiana governor, who favors the death penalty, said that he must let the courts to do their job. Surprisingly, the grandson of the murdered woman agrees with the girl’s lawyer. A deeply religious man, the grandson opposes the execution, too, and writes to his grandmother’s murderer in prison on a regular basis.Although no one believes that either of these killers deserves sympathy, some people believe that capital punishment is too severe for convicted murders who are minors. They feelthat it is wrong to treat minors the same as adults in these case. Opponents of the death penalty in general think it is wrong to take one life for anther. They argue that capital punishment does not protect the victim or the victim’s family. Opponents also suggest that occasionally innocent people may be executed for crimes they did not commit.On the other hand, people who agree with the death penalty argue that it prevents repeat crimes and, therefore, future victims. These proponents of capital punishment believe that fear of the death penalty deters crime. That is, fewer people will commit murder because they fear the death penalty.The laws concerning capital punishment are changing every day. Recently, Indiana raised its minimum age limit for the death penalty to 16. Before that, the age limit in that state was 10. Perhaps other states will change their laws in the future, but in the meantime, the controversy continues.Unit three Gun Ownership and CensorshipReading three: Arming Myself with a Gun Is Not the AnswerWhen my father died 15 years ago, my brother and I inherited the old Midwestern farmhouse our grandparents hadpurchased in the 1930s. I was the one who decided to give up my harried existence as a teacher in New York City and make a life in this idyllic village, population 350, in northern Michigan.A full-time job in the English department of a nearby college quickly followed. I settled into small-town life, charmed by a community where your neighbors are also your friends and no one worries about locking a door. Eventually I forgot about the big-city stress of crowds, noise and crime.I felt safe enough to keep my phone number listed so colleagues and students could reach me after hours. I was totally unprepared when I returned home one evening to an answering machine filled with incoherent and horribly threatening messages. I could identify the voice—it belonged to a former student of mine. Shocked and frightened, I called 911, and an officer arrived in time to pick up the phone and hear the man threaten to rape and kill me. The cop recognized the caller as the stalker in a similar incident that had been reported a few years before, and immediately rushed me out of the house. I soon learned that my would-be assailant had been arrested, according to police, drunk, armed with a 19-inch double-edged knife and just minutes from my door.It was revealed in court testimony that my stalker was aschizophrenic who had fallen through the cracks of the mental-health system. In spite of my 10-year personal-protection order, I live with the fear that he will return unsupervised to my community. Time and again, colleagues and friends have argued me to get a gun to protect myself.And why shouldn’t I? This part of rural Michigan is home to an avid gun culture. Nov.15, the opening day of deer-hunting season, is all but an official holiday. It is not uncommon to see the bumper sticker CHARLTON HESTON IS MY PRESIDENT displayed, along with a gun rack, on the back of local pickup trucks.A good friend recommended several different handguns. This assistant prosecutor on the case told me I’d have no problem getting a concealed-weapons permit. A female deputy offered to teach me how to shoot.But I haven’t gotten a gun, and I am not going to. When I questioned them, my friends and colleagues had to admit that they’ve used guns only for recreational purposes, never for self-defense. The assistant prosecutor said that he would never carry a concealed weapon himself. And an ex-cop told me that no matter how much you train, the greatest danger is of hurtingyourself.The truth is when you keep a gun for self-protection, you live with constant paranoia. For me, owning a gun and practicing at a target range would be allowing my sense of victimization to corrupt my deepest values.Contrary to all the pro-gun arguments, I don't believe guns are innocent objects. If they were, “gunnies”wouldn’t display them as badges of security and freedom. When someone waves a gun around, he or she is advertising the power to snuff out life. But guns are no deterrent. Like nuclear weapons, they only ensure greater devastation when conflict breaks out or the inevitable human error occurs.I never needed a weapon in the years prior to my terrifying experience. And while I learned not to flinch at the sight of men and women in fluorescent orange carrying rifles into the woods at the start of deer season, owning a gun for play or protection didn’t occur to me. But I’ve learned firsthand that even small, close-knit communities are subject to the kind of social problems—like disintegrating families and substance abuse—that can propel a troubled person toward violence, so I now carry pepper spray and my cell phone at all times.In Michigan—and elsewhere—as federal funding for statemental-health care continues to shrink and state psychiatric hospitals are forced to close, the numbers of untreated, incarcerated and homeless mentally ill are rising. People with serious mental illness and violent tendencies need 24-hour care. It costs less to house them in group homes with trained counselors than it does to keep them in prisons or hospitals. But until states fund more of this kind of care, people like my stalker will continue to return unsupervised to our communities.And people like me will be forced to consider getting guns to protect ourselves. I am lucky. I survived, though not unchanged. I know my fear cannot be managed with a gun. The only reasonable response is to do what I can to help fix the mental-health system. Awareness, education and proper funding will save more lives and relieve more fear than all the guns we can buy.Unit four Life or Death (Euthanasia)Reading two: In Defense of Voluntary EuthanasiaA few short years ago, I lay at the point of death. A congestive heart failure was treated for diagnostic purposes by an angiogram that triggered a stroke. Violent and painful hiccups, uninterrupted for several days and nights, preventedthe ingestion of food. My left side and one of my vocal cords became paralyzed. Some form of pleurisy set in, and I felt I was drowning in a sea of slime. At one point, my heart stopped beating; just as I lost consciousness, it was thumped back into action again. In one of my lucid intervals during those days of agony, I asked my physician to discontinue all life-supporting services or show me how to do it. He refused and predicted that someday I would appreciate the unwisdom of my request.A month later, I was discharged from the hospital. In six months, I regained the use of my limbs, and although my voice still lacks its old resonance and carrying power I no longer croak like a frog. There remain some minor disabilities and I am restricted to a rigorous, low sodium diet. I have resumed my writing and research.My experience can be and has been cited as an argument against honoring requests of stricken patients to be gently eased out of their pain and life. I cannot agree. There are two main reasons. As an octogenarian, there is a reasonable likelihood that I may suffer another “cardiovascular accident”or worse. I may not even be in a position to ask for the surcease of pain. It seems to me that I have already paid my dues to death—indeed, although time has softened my memories theyare vivid enough to justify my saying that I suffered enough to warrant dying several times over. Why run the risk of more?Secondly, I dread imposing on my family and friends another grim round of misery similar to the one my first attack occasioned.My wife and children endured enough for one lifetime. I know that for them the long days and nights of waiting, the disruption of their professional duties and their own familial responsibilities counted for nothing in their anxiety for me. In their joy at my recovery they have been forgotten. Nevertheless, to visit another prolonged spell of helpless suffering on them as my life ebbs away, or even worse, if I linger on into a comatose senility, seem s altogether gratuitous.But what, it may be asked, of the joy and satisfaction of living, of basking in the sunshine, listening to music, watching one’s grandchildren growing into adolescence, following the news about the fate of freedom in a trouble world, playing with ideas, writing one’s testament of wisdom and folly for posterity? It not all that one endured, together with the risk of its recurrence, an acceptable price for the multiple satisfactions that are still open even to a person of advanced years?Apparently those who cling to life no matter what think so.I do not.The zest and intensity of these experiences are no longer what they used to be. I am not vain enough to delude myself that I can in the few remaining years make an important discovery useful for mankind or can lead a social movement of do anything that will be historically eventful, not less eventful-making. My autobiography, which describes a record of intellectual and political experiences of some historical value, already much too long, could be posthumously published. I have had my fill of joys and sorrows and am not greedy for more life.I have always thought that a test of whether one had found happiness in one’s life is whether one would be willing to relive it—whether, if it were possible, one would accept the opportunity to be born again.Having lived a full and relatively happy life, I would cheerfully accept the chance to be reborn, but certainly not be reborn again as an infirm octogenarian. To some extent, my views reflect what I have seen happen to the aged and stricken who have been so unfortunate as to survive crippling paralysis. They suffer, and impose suffering on others, unable even to make a request that their torment be ended.I am mindful too of the burdens placed upon the community,with its rapidly diminishing resources, to provide the adequate and costly services necessary to sustain the lives of those whose days and night s are spent on mattress graves of pain. A better use could be made of these resources to increase the opportunities and qualities of life for the young. I am not denying the moral obligation the community has to look after its disabled and aged. There are times, however, when an individual may find it pointless to insist on the fulfillment of a legal and moral right.What is required is no great revolution in morals but an enlargement of imagination and an intelligent evaluation of alternative uses of community resources.Long age, Seneca observed that “the wise man will lives as long as he ought, not as long as he can.”One can envisage hypothetical circumstances in which one has a duty to prolong one’s life despite its costs for the sake of others, but such circumstances are far removed from the ordinary prospects we are considering. If wisdom is rooted in knowledge or the alternatives of choice, it must be reliably informed of the state one is in and its likely outcome. Scientific medicine is not infallible, but it is the best we have. Should a rational person be willing to endure acute suffering merely on the chance that amiraculous cure might presently be at hand? Each one should be permitted to make his own choice—especially when no one else is harmed by it.The responsibility for the decision whether deemed wise or foolish, must be with the chooser.Unit Five Motivation or Unhealthy Experience (competition) Reading one: Why Competition?I would not complain about the absurd sight of grown men shrieking and cursing on Sunday afternoons if it were not for the significance of the role played by competition in our culture. It is bad enough that fighting is actually regarded a s a sport; it is worse that the outcome of even the gentlest of competitions—baseball—can induce fans to hysteria and violence. Our entire society is affected by the need to be “better man”.I believe that competition by its very nature is always unhealthy. This is true, to begin with, because competition and cooperation are mutually exclusive. I say this fully aware of the team spirit that is supposed to develop among players—or soldiers—on the same side. First, I have doubts, base on personal experience, concerning the depth and fullness ofrelationship that result from the need to become e more effective against a common enemy. Second, those on the other side are generally regarded with suspicion and contempt in any competitive situation.The desire to win has a not very surprising characteristic: it tends to edge out other goals and values in the context of any given competitive activity. When I was in high school, I was a very successful debater for a school that had one of the country’s better team. After hundreds and hundreds of rounds of competition over the three years, I can assert that the purpose of debate is not to seek the truth ore resolve an issue, the only reason debaters sacrifice their free time collecting thousands of pieces of evidence, analyzing argument, and practicing speeches, is to win.The cost of any kind of competition in human terms is incalculable. When my success depends on other people’s failure, there is little possibility of building a real human community. Moreover, when my success depends on my being better man, I am caught on a treadmill, destined never to enjoy real satisfaction. Someone is always one step higher, and even the summit is a dangerous position in light of the many waiting to occupy it in my stead. I am thus perpetually insecure andperpetually anxious.I begin to see my self-worth as conditional on how much better I am than so many others I so many activities. If you believe as I do, that unconditional self-esteem is a very important requirement for mental health, then the destructiveness of competition will clearly outweigh any benefit.By taking the first step of understanding that competition of any kind is both psychologically harmful and philosophically unjustifiable, that the phrase “healthy competition “is a contradiction, only then can we begin to lead more normal, richer lives.。