评论
打印
Yet it deserves examination, for upon our acceptance or rejection of it depend such other highly civilized possibilities as euthanasia and seemly suicide. The inquiring mind also wants to know, why the sanctity of human life alone? My tastes do not run to household pets, but I find something less than admirable in the uses to which we put animals - in zoos, laboratories and space machines - without the excuse of the ancient law, " Eat or be eaten."
人的生命神圣不可侵犯之说是值得研究的。因为另外一些诸如无痛苦致死术和适当的自杀之类的极文明的办法也决定于我们对这种观念是否接受。追根寻底的人还想知道：为什么反复讲人生不可侵犯呢?我对家庭玩赏动物则毫无兴趣，同时我认为把动物置于动物园、实验室及空间仪器中的做法也并不值得赞美，除非以"要么吞食，要么被吞食"的古老法则作为借口。
It should moreover be borne in mind that this argument about sanctity applies - or would apply - to about ten persons a year in Great Britain and to between fifty and seventy-five in the United States. These are the average numbers of those executed in recent years. The count by itself should not, of course, affect our judgment of the principle: one life spared or forfeited is as important, morally, as a hundred thousand, But it should inspire a comparative judgment: there are hundreds and indeed thousands whom, in our concern with the horrors of execution, we forget: on the one hand, the victims of violence; on the other, the prisoners in our jails.
而且应该知道，关于神圣不可侵犯之说的这场论争在英国每年只适用于或可能适用于10个人左右，在美国每年也只适用于50-70人而已，这就是近年来被处死者的平均数字。当然这个数字本身不应该影响我们对这一原则的裁决。因为在道义上来讲，对一个人的生杀予夺与对千百万人的生杀予夺是同等重要的。但是我们应从这个数字中得出一个比较性判断：在我们考虑死刑造成的恐怖时，我们却忘记了成千上万的其他人，但我们一方面忽视了那些暴力行为的受害者，另一方面也忽视了监狱里的那些囚犯。
