This question came about over a discussion my brother and I had about whether dogs should be on leashes when outside. We both agreed that yes, they should, for several reasons, but that’s not the point.
Let’s use a hypothetical to better illustrate the question. Imagine that there’s a perfume - vanilla, for example - that doesn’t bother you at all (you don’t like nor dislike it), but that is very upsetting to some people, and can even cause some adverse reactions (allergies or something). In this hypothetical, based on the negative effects, you agree that vanilla perfumes should be banned. Currently, however, they are allowed.
You’re walking down the street, and randomly smell someone passing you by and they’re wearing a vanilla perfume.
Would that upset you? Why, or why not?
My answer is yes, without a doubt. Even though the smell itself doesn’t bother me, the fact someone would wear that perfume and not only potentially upset others, but put them in danger, is upsetting.
My brother, however, would say no! He couldn’t explain his reasoning to me.
I know this is a little convoluted, but I hope I got my question across.
Generally yes, For me it depends on how significant the discomfort is and how broadly it impacts people, but also, how much doing the thing really matters a lot to someone.
Like, there’s a point at which “ok someone else’s discomfort about this thing is marginal compared to how much it matters to a large number of people” at which point I get annoyed at someone trying to force other people to stop doing something that matters to them, even if I’m not doing the thing.
This makes sense!
That’s why I said that, in the hypothetical, you already agree with the ban! Otherwise, you’d be upset that someone was infringing on someone else’s autonomy for no good reason - in other words, you’d be upset that someone is being upset. Which, yeah I mean it’s really the same thing, in reverse, I guess.