 An alternative to both the radical incommensurability and strong agreement positions is that there is no general answer on how much agreement or disagreement is to be found between complex and heterogeneous traditions such as the Chinese and Western. As emerged above, one must distinguish between meaning and evaluational incommensurabilities. Furthermore, how much disagreement we will find not only depends on the particular subject matter but also on the answers we find most plausible within a larger context of inquiry: the attempt to explain others, their actions, practices, institutions, and history. In such a larger context, attribution to others of beliefs different from ours may be more or less reasonable depending on how it fits into a reasonable explanation of them. And what counts as a reasonable explanation in particular cases will be set within the context of one’s larger theories about persons and societies, among other things. One’s explanation of people can reasonably attribute error or simple difference of belief on an indefinite number of important matters that might even deserve to be called ‘fundamental’ as long as it seems plausible to attribute error or simple difference of belief to them in their epistemic situation as we construe it (see also Grandy, 1973). Or one’s explanation can reasonably imply convergence or similarity of belief. An intermediate possibility is that the difference or similarity becomes more prominent as one defines the subject matter in a ‘thicker’ or ‘thinner’ way (Shun, 2004). Does the Chinese tradition recognize individual rights? The answer, as shall emerge below, may depend on how specifically one defines the notion of a right. If one defines a right rather thinly as what one has whenever one has justifiable claims on others to assure one’s possession of things or one’s exercise of certain capacities, then one can plausibly argue that there is a common notion of rights between the Chinese and Western traditions (Wong, 2004a). If, on the other hand, one ‘thickens’ one’s definition of rights with the idea that they are justifiable independently of what is a good and worthwhile life for human beings, then one plausibly argue against a common notion of rights.