[size=150]Let me be a jerk[/size]
When I was born, the city, the streets and the park already existed. I understood that I have to pay a tax so that the men in blue overalls can repair the streets and clean the paths and i was fine with it. I understood that they belong to all of us and that I cannot forbid short people to go on the streets even though I don’t like them. I found it strange that my neighbor doesn’t like blacks and he doesn’t welcome them in his restaurant. He says they are inferior. Maybe I’ll buy a house in another neighborhood. Either way, from tomorrow I won’t dine in his restaurant anymore.
But I could not understand why a gentleman in a suit came to close his restaurant. He said there is a law forcing him to let everybody in his restaurant. He said that he’ll move the restaurant on another street. But the law applies there, too. “Where can I go, then?†he asked. “You can’t go anywhere. You’ll have to let in blacks no matter where you go.†said the gentleman in the suit. “Why?†my neighbor asked. “Because there is a law.†“I see…†he said sadly. “When I opened this restaurant I was told that there is a law forcing me to have three exists because in case of a fire, 150 people would not be able to exit on one door only. And that it is my responsibility to make sure that people eating in my restaurant do not get hurt. I tore down another wall and made a new door. I have two tables less, but still this is the nicest restaurant in the neighborhood. But I still don’t understand why I have to let in blacks, if I don’t like them. Why do I have to make a special place for those who don’t smoke? There is another restaurant in the neighborhood and there you can’t smoke. They also welcome blacks.â€
I do not believe in God or supernatural forces and I haven’t the slightest interest in how the world we live in came into existence. Not because I am ignorant, as many would suppose, but simply because I have no arguments for whatever conclusion I might reach. I don’t know how life appeared, but I don’t ask myself. No matter what I might conclude, I can’t verify that. A thousand years ago, people could not explain the miracle of a thunder. Now they can. In another thousand years, people will have explained many of the things we now consider miracles.
We can’t explain life, we say it’s a miracle and we are amazed by it. I do not see why the logical consequence of that is the existence of a supernatural force that created the world and life. I understand that you, dear reader, might have concluded that this force exists. You can’t prove to me its existence and I can’t prove to you that it doesn’t exist. We’ll talk about all these over a glass of wine and I won’t try to impose my conclusion and you won’t try to impose yours.
I do not think that there are truths in this world, others that those we assume. A truth is not a truth because it’s written in stone, but simply because I will consider it such. The fact that 2, 10, 15 or more people agreed on one thing does not make that thing a stronger truth than it would be if agreed on by only one. This text is written in black. No man will contradict that in good will. But this is a truth only because we agreed on it. Light causes different sensations in the human eye and we agreed that the sensation caused by the light reflected by the ink used to write this text should be called black. You can call it “plicot†if you so wish, but it is obvious that we won’t be able to understand each other smoothly. We need such conventions in order to understand each other, but I see no reason to observe them when we go to our homes.
If you don’t smoke, it is obvious to me that following some reasoning you concluded that it’s not good to smoke. I don’t know that reasoning and nor do I know if it’s valid. I don’t care if your opinion is sustained by a thousand medical studies. We don’t have to agree on smoking. You might have reached this conclusion not following reasoning but simply by holding it a truth (as defined above). Frankly, I don’t see why I should care how you reached that conclusion. I suffice with knowing that you believe it. I will not try to convince you of the invalidity of your reasoning, because it cannot be judged in such terms. I do not agree with you when you say that smoking is not good, but I will respect that as a point of view, as you will respect my point of view that smoking is good. Like you decided that it’s best for you not to smoke, I decided that it’s best for me to smoke. Neither one is right. We just have different opinions and we’ll have to respect that.
If you don’t consider smoking to be good, you won’t make friends who smoke, you won’t buy a house next to a smoker and you won’t play basketball on Sunday with smokers. You’ll probably cross the street when you see me and I won’t blow the smoke towards you, but I fail to see what gives you the right to make a law banning smoking on the streets as long as I won’t be looking to cause you any discomfort. The street belongs to all, and personal opinions give you no right over public space.
When you go shopping, you won’t go to a store that sells tobacco and you won’t dine in a restaurant that permits smoking. And if no restaurant in this world forbids smoking, nothing gives you the right to ask for a law that forbids smoking or asks restaurants to make non-smoking areas. You’ll be free to open your restaurant, with your own money, where you’ll make you own rules. I won’t understand why you have a problem with smokers and I won’t come to eat in your restaurant, although you would probably let me in as long as I don’t smoke inside. I won’t come to eat in your restaurant because the only sanction I am entitled to apply to those with different opinions is to refuse to interact with them more than required by the fact that we live in the same society. But I fail to see what gives me the right to make a law that forces you to make a smoking area. It’s your money, your restaurant and you run it as you see fit. Should I be the only smoker on this planet, I still don’t see why I should be forced to respect a rule derived from personal preference.
If, besides being a smoker, I am also a racist, I will not seek to eat in a restaurant that welcomes blacks. But nor will I seek to make a law that forbids blacks to eat in restaurants. And nor will I forbid blacks to ride the bus, because the bus isn’t mine. I will assume this personal preference and I shall walk or take a cab. If I open a restaurant and I will not want blacks eating in it, I’ll put a sign on the door. You won’t come to eat in my restaurant if my attitude towards blacks bothers you, though I’ll let you in if you are white. But I fail to see what gives you the right to make a law that forces me to welcome blacks in my restaurant. You may consider that I am wrong. It does not matter whether I am right or wrong. What matters is that you can decide if you eat in my restaurant or not. And if you won’t, it’s your decision. If nobody eats in my restaurant, I’ll go out of business. I will ask you why you don’t eat in my restaurant and you’ll say: “Because you are racist. We won’t force you to welcome blacks in your restaurant, but we don’t want to be friends with a racist.†Probably I’ll go out of business. If that is a consequence of my opinion on blacks, I‘ll have to assume it. The same way that you find it absurd to be forced to eat in my restaurant, the same way I find it absurd to be forced to welcome blacks in my restaurant.
You probably won’t consent to strip in front of 12 telecameras. Neither would I. But if there are two individuals, one of them willing to strip in front of 12 telecameras and the other willing to broadcast that live, I fail to see what gives me the right to forbid that. I won’t watch. If you watch and find it degrading, I only find it normal that you switch off your TV. I don’t find normal that you make a law forbidding stripping in front of telecameras.
The fact that more individuals agreed on what’s right and wrong, does not make that a universal truth. The fact that all individuals concluded that smoking is bad, does not mean that it must be true for those who will be boned next week.
Should this be the case, we would make a great injustice to our children. If I choose to live by some rules, I fail to see why I would force others to live by the same rules. My child won’t have a say in his coming in this world. This decision belongs to me. To me and to the woman that will give him birth. If when he grows up he’ll consider smoking to be good for him, I do not see why I should punish him for that. I’ve decided to bring him in this world, I laid before him some rules he did not make and I make him obey them without offering an alternative. I can’t give him a place to make his own rules, so it is my duty to give him a piece of my space where to make his rules. I probably won’t allow him to smoke in my house, but when he’ll have his own I won’t forbid him to smoke there.
My truths are not universal. If they are valid for me and my friends they don’t have to be so for you or your children. We don’t have the right to make rules for others. We do have the right to participate in making the rules that enable us to live together. But what everyone does home is not the concern of the society. If one does drugs, it’s not my concern. My concern is to make sure he will not try to sell them to my child. And when my child will decide to do drugs, I’ll make sure he is fully aware of the consequences of his actions. I’ll try to make him change his mind. I’ll ask him to take my word on the fact that drugs are not good. But I do not see why I should forbid him to do drugs. The fact that I reached the conclusion that drugs are not good does not make the holder of the supreme truth. I only have the duty to make sure that he who decides to do drugs does so responsibly. I fail to see why an individual cannot decide so responsibly. Maybe this will not bring any gain to society. An individual doing drugs can’t contribute much to the progress of the group. But why should he have to? I understand not to oppose the progress of the group, but why should he be forced to contribute? After all, we already decided that it wasn’t him who decided to come to this world, but the group.
I might develop a system of values that comes into contradiction with that of the group. I can choose to isolate myself. If, because of my values, each member of the group will refuse to interact with me I will have to assume that. It is normal not to interact with a person whose values you don’t approve of. But I fail to see what gives you the right to make your values the policy of the group. Even though there is only one to challenge them.
As long as we respect the life and property of others and we make sure we leave the public space as we find it or – if personal values allow us – nicer, I fail to see why we couldn’t live together. Even if I smoke, do drugs, am racist, misogynist and I can’t stand spectacled chaps.