If you come to my house, and are not aware that I do not want feet propped up on my table and as such, place your feet upon my table, then it is up to me to advise you how to act within my house and how to better act if you are to stay within my house. No one was hurt, so this type of incident is not a big deal. If you have such a problem with it, then we can both agree that it would be best for you to get out of my house. We can separate in peace, again, as no one was hurt. May you find someone who does not mind if you place your feet upon their table.
However, if you come to my house and dislike the painting I did, books and movies in my library, and my dog, or other such things, and from your dislike of them you proceed to destroy those items and kill my dog, we have a problem. Similarly, if you find that because my partner is displeasing (or far too pleasing) to you in any way, and from that you proceed to assault my partner, then we have a bigger problem. That you were beforehand in a place that deemed such behavior acceptable – destroying those ‘bad’ items, or assaulting others not deemed to have rights – is irrelevant. You are not there, but my house; my opinion is that where you were should adopt the rules of my house, but I am not about to go on a mission to make that happen.
Breaking my things and assaulting my partner, and you will find out the lack of concern I have about your house, or culture of origin. To not punish you accordingly would be an injustice and a disservice on multiple fronts, to multiple people. 1) it would be a disservice to me to lose my valuables and not receive appropriate restitution; 2) it would be a disservice to my partner, who aside from being my partner is a human and deserving all rights to be recognized to an individual, and receive any appropriate restitution; 3) it would be a disservice to other ‘guests’ who may pursue the same behaviors of the offender; 4) it is a disservice to others in my neighborhood who may be the victims of the vandalism and assaults that were seen to be accepted or tolerated; 5) it is an injustice for the offender to be able to violate another’s rights and get away with it, or not be appropriately punished for such violations; 6) and because it is doubly important, it is an injustice to the victim whose rights were actually violated, and for those who would have their rights violated in similar acts.
It is a failure of tact for an innocent, no-harm norm to be violated, such as the feet on the table; non-right violations of tact are victimless, and should be treated as such. It is a moral failure to not pursue appropriate justice and restitution for the violation of rights. As a moral failing, it is to be treated the same as if done by anyone else for such a violation; it doesn’t matter where someone came from: abroad or at home, elsewhere in the ‘neighborhood to be my guest’ or within my house. Proper punishment and restoration to the extent possible should be made regardless of who committed the act, for it is what those involved in the act need, and to set precedent should anyone (guest or homeowner) be involved in a similar act in the future.
This is not to say we should not have guests or neighbors invited over, for we should. By sharing with them we expand our knowledge with what they know, they expand their knowledge with what we know, and we both can be made the better for that exchange. With that exchange, learning of one another’s norms can be done, and then moved beyond to see which if any should be adopted. But with that, no violations of rights should be tolerated. If rights violations are tolerated, it does not matter who did them, the violations will be repeated and the neighborhood will fall apart
; it will collapse. That collapse will be because of the failure of those in charge and the residents who did not hold those who violated rights as the rights-violators they were, while treating those rights violations as mere tact violations.
Those people who allow such self-destructive behavior are enablers and abettors to their own destruction.