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.
