Argumentative Essay on Right To Privacy

In the paper, I will be presenting Thomson’s argument. After presenting the argument I will object to the argument then I will defend Thomson’s argument against mine. Lastly, I will support all the arguments that were presented.  

Thomson presents an argument about privacy by presenting two cases, the first case explains a loud fight that is happening with the window open. Where it can be heard by people walking down the street. In this case no violation to privacy is being violated because she states that,” It seems to me that anyone who stops to listen violates no rights of ours; stopping to listen is at worst bad, Not Nice, not done by the best people.” What she means is that those who stopped in the street to listen to their conversion are people with bad manners, bad behavior who clearly don’t have anything else better to do. The second case presented is similar to the first case but in this case supposed the couple is having a quiet fight with closed windows. The person walking down the street is interested and wants to know what the conversation is about so he trains an amplifier on the house making it very clear for him to hear everything. From Thomson's perspective that person is now violating the right to privacy because the individual did not only act badly but was determined to train an amplifier device on the house. That is a violation of privacy because the person is aware of their conversation and he/she can now know everything about the conversation. Therefore, depending on what the person heard he/she can now use the information to his advantage. In these two cases the main point is that some people act with bad intentions only and do not violate the right to privacy but Thomson believes it’s still not right to invade without consent. 

The arguments being presented can be more than just concerns to the people who are walking down streets. As we speak about listening to other people fighting, I have personally done it but that does not imply that I am interested or makes me have bad behavior as she explains in the article. I disagree that it is not a violation of the right to privacy. It’s now always about invading someone else's privacy but it can be that people who decide to stop and listen are worried about what's happening. You never know if a loud fight can then turn into a physical fight and in that exact moment you never know if that person will need some sort of help as she or he tries to fight for her life. For example, when I heard my two cousins fighting while I was passing by. I had the option to stop or keep walking but because I care about them. I decided to stop and listen to their conversation so I can later on try to help them with their problems. Not one second I thought about doing it for bad intentions. I was genuinely worried about them that I had to stop. Invading their privacy is if my cousin told me to now look through his computer and I do it without his consent. In this case I am not respecting him and I'm looking through his personal stuff. There is no invasion of privacy when it comes down to listening. Listening is something common people tend to do, whether it’s being at school, or being at church. 

Anyone who takes the time to stop to listen to some else's conversion is invading the right to privacy. Mostly everyone has their own problems to be looking for more. Everything is done with bad intentions and listening to conversations can be a way to obtain personal information. The article states,“It is most convenient to meet in the park and we do so, taking a bench far from the path since we don't want to be overheard. It strikes a man to know what we are saying to each other in that heated fashion, so he creeps around in the bushes behind us and crouches back of the bench to listen.” The man was determined to do anything it took just to hear their conversation. These are bad qualities from someone who wanted to obtain personal information from these two. Let's say the man was their friend and he was just doing it because he wanted to help. It doesn’t matter because that friend is now invading their right to privacy. The whole reason they moved to a quiet bench was not to be heard. Therefore, it’s right to go and creep behind them. As the article explains the right to privacy is violated even if it's heard yards away using a device. Even if the person decided to not risk getting caught and decided to play it safe by using a special device that would still be invading the right to privacy.. 

Thomson presents very strong arguments when it comes to the right to privacy. As far as I'm concerned, I agree that the violation of privacy is very important for many individuals. The article explains people's behavior and how some do negative things for just having bad manners. How we don’t consider that being part of invading the right to privacy. In reality it is even if the action is not as terrible as having a case where someone trains an X-ray device on the wall to see through it’s something we shouldn’t do.  Although people look after each other it is not right to be hearing other peoples conversation where there can be personal information involved. Whether the act of the actions is not intended to violate someone else's right we still have other rights that apply to us.