I think farting in a crowded elevator is wrong. In fact, the expulsion of body gases in any kind of confined space is, in my judgment, reprehensible. Of course, I labor over whether or not to impose my personally held judgment of this practice on those that do not share my position. The argument goes that it is as wrong to impose a restraint on others as it is to practice the dreaded behavior. Certainly I would never commit the act of publicly breaking wind because I believe it to be a violation of human dignity and an impolite imposition on society. Yet, to insist that others follow my own moral compass would be a violation of their right to follow their own ethical azimuth. So, here I am, having yielded to respect for the others’ right of self-determination, I am regularly and relentlessly bombarded with the odor de jour. How fortunate for the practitioners of this personal freedom that I have respected their rights. How could I have not understood that it could have been the other way around? They might have been compelled to honor my right of a stench-free environment. If I had understood that there is no such thing as an absolute vacuum -- not naturally anyway, it would have meant that I would have known that there could be no compromise on this issue. The law of non-contradiction [“It is impossible for the same thing to belong and not to belong at the same time to the same thing and in the same respect”) (Aristotle, Metaph IV 3 1005b19–20] illustrates the impossibility of compromise. Ergo, my acquiescence on this point has served to empower the opposing point of view. How did this happen? How was it that expediency became a moral right? Could it be that I don’t really hold to my own stand with honest conviction? Might it be that the constant, loud, and accusatory polemic from the gassers have put me on the defense and set me on my heels? Somewhere along the way I bought in to the prospect that insisting on the limitation of others’ personal freedom was selfish and unsupportable. And, in accepting such a prospect I wound up ceding the philosophical and legal landscape to the opposition. They certainly understood that compromise was impossible and demanded their rights instead of mine. They were not confused about what was at stake. In the rhetoric of debate, never has the other side been known to utter, “I believe in my right to fart in public but I don’t think it is right to impose my belief on everyone.” Thus has the dispute arrived at this juncture! It seems clear to me now that if I truly believe in the rightness of my position regarding public flatulence, I am bound to argue with confidence and sincerity that when two polar opposite freedoms are at risk, the law of non-contradiction demands one or the other. Compromise is simply agreement to the opposing viewpoint. And, if the subject of this brief essay actually was about farting in public, it would be near meaningless.