It is a mistake to conclude, as some have, that ancient people did not know what moral rights were simply because no known ancient language has an expression correctly translatable as "a moral right." This would be like saying that a person who discovers a wild fruit tree and returns repeatedly to harvest from it and study it has no idea what the fruit is until naming it or learning its name.
The lack of having a name for moral rights isn’t enough to conclude that ancient people didn’t know what they are. The author supports this with an analogy: A person repeatedly studies and harvests from a wild fruit tree, and someone determines that this person doesn’t know what the fruit is until it’s been named. The author implies that this response is ridiculous.
With analogies, we should always question the weaknesses of the comparison. Ask, where does the analogy break down? Two assumptions here:
1) Ancient people have actually accomplished the equivalent of harvesting and studying in regard to moral rights.
2) Harvesting from and studying something means you know what that thing is.
Which one of the following ██ ██ ██████████ ████████ ██ ███ █████████
To know the ████ ██ █████████ ██ ██ ████ ████ ████ █████ ███
People who first ████████ ████ █████████ ██ ████ ██ ██████ ████ ██ ██████ ███ ██████ ████ ███ ████ ██ ███ ██████
The name or ██████████ ████ ██ ████ ██ ████████ █████████ ██████ ███████ ███ ███████████ █████ ███ ██████ ██ ███ █████ ████ ██ ███████████
A person who ██████████ ████████ ████ █ ████ █████ ████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ████ ██ ████ ███ █████ ██ ████ ██████ ███████ █ ████ ███ ███ ██████
One need not ████ ████ █████████ ██ ██████ ███ ███ ████ ███