Every morning, my friend leaves his house to get on the bus for New York. He looks down his block at the bus stop nearest to his house. If he sees 10 or more people waiting, he knows that he won’t get a seat and that he’ll have to stand the entire way.
When this happens, he walks 3 blocks in the opposite direction and boards the bus at the bus stop previous to his 1st choice. This stop is an extra 2 block walk for him.
At first, this seems like a reasonable way to guarantee that he gets a seat on the bus. He’s willing to walk the extra 2 blocks while others are not.
I find this unethical for several reasons. Most people I’ve asked disagree with me. I won’t tell you why I find this unethical yet. I’d like to hear your answer and your reasons first.
I concur with Athena. The other people could walk to that stop if they wanted to. It’s the same idea as getting to the movie theater early so you can get a good seat.
Yeah, I have no problem with this either. I can’t for the life of imagine how it would be unethical. Do you think it is unethical because he is walking for the specific purpose of getting a seat, or would it be OK if there was some other reason for walking to the other stop, say for example, going to the dry cleaners?
Assuming:
–It’s a regular city bus
–There’s not some back-story here about a disabled person who really needs a seat and nobody will yield their seat or something…
I think it’s perfectly fine. As Scarlett said, the other people could walk to the other stop if they wanted to.
I can’t see a problem with it either. Maybe the other people don’t care about sitting as much as he does. If they did then they would be free to do the same thing.
Count me in. I don’t see what the problem is…there’s no rule that says you have to get on at the stop nearest your house or whatever.
I might feel a little bad if it’s like 10 little old ladies with walkers standing at the stop but he can always give his seat up, although that would defeat the purpose of walking the xtra two blocks.
Taking advantage of an opportunity isn’t unethical. The other people could do the same thing, and choose not to.
Would it be unethical to go to a store early when there aren’t alot of shoppers to make sure you get a copy of something while it’s still there?
Same principle.
I don’t understand what the hell would be unethical about this-unless, of course, as more elderly and handicapped get on the bus, he doesn’t offer his seat to them-which I believe is the general rule when taking the bus. Other than that…
One could argue (from, IIRC, a Kantian perspective) that if everyone were to do what your friend was doing, then nothing would be solved. People would just go further and further to get to earlier bus stops. People at early stops would be forced off their route. There would be an ever-escalating “Bus stop race.” :rolleyes:
or… not.
Certainly, from a utilitarian philosophy, What your friend is doing does not, on the whole, benefit people. He ends up walking further for no greater end result.
Completely ethical.
Also demonstrates intelligence, planning and local knowledge.
We need more people like your friend.
Now what mysterious reason have you got for assuming otherwise?
Are you suggesting that one of the people waiting will not get on the bus?
As has already been pointed out, they could do the same thing as your friend. The exercise would do them good.
Are you suggesting he is jumping the queue?
Ridiculous!
What if you were an elderly person who really couldn’t walk the extra 2 blocks? But you still woke up extra early to get to the bus stop before everyone else does so that you can get a seat. You waited in the cold on some mornings. You might have even petitioned to get the bus stop closer to your neighborhood for the benefit of everyone.
Now you see the young whippersnapper that you usually see at your bus stop already sitting on the bus when you enter. And pretty soon, some other people at your stop start doing the same thing, thinking its a good idea. How would you feel?
Also, even if everyone at the bus stop is perfectly healthy, I still think that it’s wrong. As others have mentioned, everyone has the freedom to walk the extra 2 blocks just like my friend. But if this happens, the closer bus stop eventually won’t be a stop anymore. As a group, you’re taking away the closer bus stop. It becomes a “Tragedy of the Commons” type decision.
Nope, 'cos every bus or subway I’ve seen has seats at the front for elderly or disabled passengers. If I’m an elderly person who can’t walk the extra two blocks, I’ll just take that seat – or ask the bus driver to get the young whippersnapper off that seat so I can sit down.
Juggernaut, would your friend get up and yield his seat to the elderly person in the situation you describe? If so, then I think he’s doing nothing wrong. If he wouldn’t, then we might have an ethical problem.
Other than that, I see him doing nothing more than exercising free choice… the same choice everyone else at the busy bus stop has, but they are choosing not to act upon. I ride the bus regularly, and I sometimes do the same thing. However, if someone who clearly needs my seat much more than I boards a full bus, I make it a practice to yield my seat to that person.
You want to impose a cost on someone to negate a benefit to him. In doing so, you feel you will help the community as a whole, even though there is no proof that this benefit will happen. You then imply that this extra effort is immoral somehow.
You’re a liberal, aren’t you? Environmentalist too, I’ll bet.
Sometime I get to the train station and my train is leaving in less then 3-5 minutes. I know that seats will be rare and another train will be along in about 12-17 minutes and I will get a seat on that one since I’ll be one of the 1st so I wait.
Now I’m wondering am I doing anything unethical? (no answer required)
[Mr. Burns]
Why should the race always be to the strong? Or the jumble, to the quick-witted?
[/Mr. Burns]
If we wanna get really pretentious:
eth·ic
Pronunciation: 'e-thik
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ethik, from Middle French ethique, from Latin ethice, from Greek EthikE, from Ethikos
Date: 14th century
1 : plural but singular or plural in construction : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation
2 a : a set of moral principles or values b : a theory or system of moral values <the present-day materialistic ethic> c : plural but singular or plural in construction : the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group <professional ethics> d : a guiding philosophy
2(b) or (d) might apply only to the extent that you’ve created your own self-imposed philosophical system that says you can’t go to an earlier stop, but that only applies to you and you’d have a tough time selling it as a moral absolute.
Mr. Moto: I wouldn’t describe myself as either, although I surely wouldn’t call myself by their opposites. But that’s really irrelevent to this discussion.
The problem is that people make decisions for their own benefit. But this specific decision ends up hurting everybody in the end. Pretty soon, there won’t be a close bus stop. Everyone will have to walk the extra 2 blocks and then the same problem will occur.
And so no one here would be upset if other people from later bus stops started coming to yours to get the seat. Maybe everyone on the bus route will just show up at the 1st stop eliminating the need for any other stops.
