In a recent Pit thread we have several posters insulting and being extremely rude to a poster who, in turn, is being pretty polite. The argument put forth to justify the insults and rude behavior is that the person deserves it because of the position they are arguing, and the attitudes it reveals.
The specifics here are not important.
I consider this to be poor justification and to represent a fallacy. It is though a common fallacy. What it goes to is the concept of rights. Most people, I think, have the concept completely wrong.
When you think of a right, what do you think of? How do use the term?
People think “I have the right to life.” “I have God given rights.” “There are basic human rights that all people have.” People thing of a right as something to which they are entitled to, something they own, something they have.
In fact a right is no such thing.
Does the bear that rips your ass off recognize your right to life? Is it proof against bear attacks? Does the universe or the law of nature recognize or enforce your rights? Since everybody dies, the right to life seems kind of obviously flawed, does it not?
What are you really saying when you say you have a right? What is this thing, a right, anyway.
In all cases, a right is something that somebody else extends to you or enforces on your behalf. You don’t actually have it, somebody gives it to you.
They are rules that people respect in regards to yourself. If they do not you count on other people to help you enforce these rules.
Let’s lookl at a hypothetical court case. A bigger, stronger, smarter, richer person with more connections than you, does you wrong. You go to court.
You beleive that you have the right to equal treatment under law with this other person. The person however, has better lawyers, has thought up a better story, has more money to spend in court, and is poker buddies with the judge’s brother.
Even though you have been wronged, you lose the case. You lose all the appeals, and that’s it. You argue that your right to equal treatment has been violated.
This right of yours was taken away or violated, you feel. In fact you never had this right. What was actually at work and failed on your behalf was a set of rules regarding all the other parties in the case, which they did not follow. It wasn’t something that you had, it was something they were supposed to do… or not do. They did not come through. You lost. You have no recourse.
All rights work this way. Your “rights” don’t apply to you. They apply to everybody else with respect to you.
Similarly other people’s rights are really things that you are supposed to do or not do with respect to them. Fred’s rights don’t apply to Fred. They apply to you when you deal with Fred.
Now, most people would like to be considered and rational people. Sometimes they are not, because they feel the other person doesn’t deserve it.
I submit to you that it’s really not a question of them, their deservedness, they really don’t matter in this thing. If you are a reasonable person, you reason. If you fly off with invective at another person, they did not make you do it. You did. That’s you doing it.
If you’re rational it has nothing to do with the person you are addressing. You are either rational… or you are not. You are either reasonable… or you are not.
The other person has nothing to do with it.