Onora/Kant

Kantianism is differentiated from rights theory in that rights theory grants the same rights as adults, in the same form. Children obviously cannot make the informed decisions that an adult can (or at least should be able to), so the adults around them must (are obligated to) help them make these decisions. This obligation towards children is regarded as fundamental for O'Neill, and the rights of the child logically follow from this obligation, whereas the rights theorists claim that children have these rights in virtue of their humanity.

For me, Kantianism is appealling because it involves the fewest assumptions; the obligations logically follow from the recognized fact that children cannot survive without the support, guidance, and interaction with adults, whereas saying that humans automatically have certain rights is a pure assumption (however attractive it may be).

My main objection to O'Neill is- How may one determine when one is no longer obligated toward the children? Or, otherwise phrased, how may we know when a child has "grown up"? There are certainly people that try to make decisions for their (or someone else's) children when the child is more than capable of making that decision, for whatever reason.