I know I’ve said this before, but most of the time you, I, and just about everyone use the terms rights and duties in a reciprocal way. I shouldn’t beat a child simply for my own amusement, should I? I expect we agree that’s wrong. Well then, do I have an ethical duty not to beat that child or does the child have a right not to be beaten? Most people are going to say quite readily that both propositions are true. So why does this semantic distinction between rights and duties become so precious when we’re talking about a dog, say, instead of a child?

You say that we don’t grant rights to less than fully competent humans. Do you really mean that? If you do, then I’m betting most folks aren’t likely to agree with you. I don’t. I’d argue that while we don’t assign full rights to less than fully functional humans, we do grant them some rights. And generally the rights we bestow are based on their degree of competence, their ability to understand, appreciate, and exercise the rights they’re guaranteed.

We can get into a discussion about the important differences between a duty and a right if you like. I don’t think such a discussion is all that germane to this issue, but others disagree. Before we start down that path though, and hopefully in lieu of making that journey, maybe you could tell me why this distinction between “duty” and “right” matters so much to you when we’re talking about a chimp rather than, for example, a developmentally-disabled human.

After all, to the best of my recollection I’ve never seen you begin a post (top-level no less) by saying “Mentally-impaired human beings DO NOT HAVE RIGHTS.” Would you say such a thing if given the opportunity? If not, and if this contractual definition of “rights” must remain paramount, then why not?

Just curious…

Cheers.