É«ºÐÖ±²¥

Roger Scruton's understanding of the term "right" lies at the heart of so many problems of moral reasoning, as do the notions of "individual sovereignty", and "responsibilities". Human beings often do not even ascribe to other humans an individual sovereignty. And does a teenage joyrider have the same, or less, rights than Ronald Reagan, once a world leader, but also a man who sanctioned acts of violence? Should a four-year-old with extremely limited concepts of responsibility and respect for individual sovereignty, not have a right to life? What does Professor Scruton think about foetuses?

I suggest that the idea of "rights" is indeed problematic. It would be more useful to consider whether anyone should be given a "licence to kill". If the state or society sanctions killings of any sort, what effect does it have on society? I, for example, believe that any sort of sanctioned killing, be it execution, animal slaughter, war, euthanasia, or abortion, effectively brutalises individuals and society as a whole. Notions about who has a right etc, are becoming quite useless because they are so relativist and based in enlightenment theories shown to be problematic. We have to look further afield: to feminist discourse, that of consistent respect for life advocates, and others. I suggest Professor Scruton vacates the pages of The É«ºÐÖ±²¥S for a while, and lets others into the forum.

Angela Kennedy MA student (gender and society) Middlesex University.