Every moment and daily action would be rational and empathetic. Here are some scenarios I witnessed today. I’ll swap them to more ideal
~
Example 1
Real scenario: A train operator stops the train and yells at a man for apparently smoking at the train stop prior to boarding. The operator demands the passenger leaves for breaking the “no smoking before pickup” rule. The man is flushed red and has tears in his eyes. The operator is so convicted in their anger that they have no empathy.
Ideal scenario: The train operator does not take his anger out on others. He forgives the man for breaking the rule, as ultimately no one is harmed. The train operator uses his power and authority to ensure the man gets home safely. The train operator values the well-being of the man more than arbitrary rules because he is empathetic, forgiving, and kind.
Example 2
Real scenario: A homeless man boards the bus. He has heavy bags he wrestles with. The bus driver demands the homeless man to hurry up to sit down as the bus operator “has to go.” The homeless man obeys but is tangled in heavy bags and uncomfortable to cater to the demands of the bus driver
Ideal scenario: The bus driver is patient and allows time for the homeless man to sit down. The bus driver may even help the man with his stuff. The driver prioritizes their passengers safety and well-being over arbitrary things like timeliness.
Example 3
Real scenario: A boarding passenger of the train takes a big puff of their electronic cigarette and puffs it inside.
Ideal scenario: The boarding passenger throws away their electronic cigarette as it harms their well-being. This has the added benefit of not polluting the common air with toxic & addictive chemicals. … Meanwhile, all electronic cigarette companies had an epiphany and decides to not sell their products anymore as they realize it is killing humanity, and they do not want to profit off the sickening of their fellow humans.
~
In each scenario, the relevant actors try to be more compassionate to themselves and others. I could give more examples, but 3 is good enough.
In these examples, the ideal scenarios described aren’t any more logical or empathetic than the real scenario. All you’re saying is that particular people are more deserving of empathy than the people who are affected by their actions.
Example 1: People smell awful after smoking. Everyone else in the train sitting in the vicinity will have to deal with the smell for the duration of their ride. The more often this happens, the less likely people will be willing to take mass transit, leading to lots of other negative downstream effects for everyone on the planet. Do all these other people not also deserve empathy?
Example 2: Timeliness has real effects on people’s lives. What if there’s a disabled man waiting on this bus at a later stop? They planned their errand so that it’s within their ability to handle given their disability, but a late bus means that the timing no longer aligns and it’ll significantly extend the duration past what they can safely handle. Would this man not also deserve empathy? Poor timeliness for mass transit would also discourage people from using them.
Example 3: If the man smoking in example 1 is deserving of empathy with regards to his addictions, why not this passenger?
All three of your examples include transit and none of them involve the elevator dilemma? It also applies to trains and buses. That is, that people want to get on before allowing others to exit. It is therefore illogical to force yourself from a larger space (outside) into a smaller space (inside) when those inside are trying to get out.
On a tangent, what is illogical about the elevator dilemma is, we don’t apply it to parking lots and car parks. Think about it: we often feel entitled to get in, and physically block others from leaving in order to get in. Then we vie for a spot (especially around the holidays, it’s madness) but we actively prevent others from leaving. If we looked at parking the same way we look at the elevator, we would welcome people leaving so we could take their places with greater ease. But too many people only think of themselves.
It reminds me of something I read about Japan. To be clear, I think this is absolute bullshit. But I read once that Japanese salarymen try to arrive to the office early, and will park in the back, so that those who were forced by circumstance to arrive closer to the time their job starts to park closer to the front. I think that’s bullshit for two reasons. One, people are selfish, even in the land of the rising sun. Being Japanese does not make you kind, even if the language seems angled that way and even if people seem kind on the streets in anime. (Anime is not real life.) But two, parking up front doesn’t get you in sooner. Leaving early does. At the speed I walk, parking at the outer edge of my job’s parking lot might make me come in a full minute later than parking in the closest available spot. So it’s not worth spending a minute or more looking for the ideal spot. Rather, I take the first spot I see and I save time. But not everyone is that logical. Now if you do the math, if you take the distance between your home and your job and you apply the legal speed, then you do the math and apply a higher speed, even going 10, 20 MPH over the speed limit, you’re saving mere minutes over a short commute and risking stiff legal penalties and further delays in dealing with the police (it takes them at least 10-15 minutes to ticket you). So again, leaving early is the ultimate “hack.” Seriously, leave five minutes early, take the first spot you see, you will make optimal time. That’s based on my commute. For a longer commute, add more time for safety.
Transit problems are solved by time, not speed.
As far as the smoker, yeah, people should not smoke in confined spaces. Or “vape.” It’s the same thing.
P.S. I already know I’m utterly insane. I just try to get through each day.
Followup question.
“As opposed to what?”
If everyone is “insane”, what would a “not insane” person look like if one hypothetically did exist?
Suicidal.
Every moment and daily action would be rational and empathetic. Here are some scenarios I witnessed today. I’ll swap them to more ideal
~
Example 1
Real scenario: A train operator stops the train and yells at a man for apparently smoking at the train stop prior to boarding. The operator demands the passenger leaves for breaking the “no smoking before pickup” rule. The man is flushed red and has tears in his eyes. The operator is so convicted in their anger that they have no empathy.
Ideal scenario: The train operator does not take his anger out on others. He forgives the man for breaking the rule, as ultimately no one is harmed. The train operator uses his power and authority to ensure the man gets home safely. The train operator values the well-being of the man more than arbitrary rules because he is empathetic, forgiving, and kind.
Example 2
Real scenario: A homeless man boards the bus. He has heavy bags he wrestles with. The bus driver demands the homeless man to hurry up to sit down as the bus operator “has to go.” The homeless man obeys but is tangled in heavy bags and uncomfortable to cater to the demands of the bus driver
Ideal scenario: The bus driver is patient and allows time for the homeless man to sit down. The bus driver may even help the man with his stuff. The driver prioritizes their passengers safety and well-being over arbitrary things like timeliness.
Example 3
Real scenario: A boarding passenger of the train takes a big puff of their electronic cigarette and puffs it inside.
Ideal scenario: The boarding passenger throws away their electronic cigarette as it harms their well-being. This has the added benefit of not polluting the common air with toxic & addictive chemicals. … Meanwhile, all electronic cigarette companies had an epiphany and decides to not sell their products anymore as they realize it is killing humanity, and they do not want to profit off the sickening of their fellow humans.
~
In each scenario, the relevant actors try to be more compassionate to themselves and others. I could give more examples, but 3 is good enough.
In these examples, the ideal scenarios described aren’t any more logical or empathetic than the real scenario. All you’re saying is that particular people are more deserving of empathy than the people who are affected by their actions.
All three of your examples include transit and none of them involve the elevator dilemma? It also applies to trains and buses. That is, that people want to get on before allowing others to exit. It is therefore illogical to force yourself from a larger space (outside) into a smaller space (inside) when those inside are trying to get out.
On a tangent, what is illogical about the elevator dilemma is, we don’t apply it to parking lots and car parks. Think about it: we often feel entitled to get in, and physically block others from leaving in order to get in. Then we vie for a spot (especially around the holidays, it’s madness) but we actively prevent others from leaving. If we looked at parking the same way we look at the elevator, we would welcome people leaving so we could take their places with greater ease. But too many people only think of themselves.
It reminds me of something I read about Japan. To be clear, I think this is absolute bullshit. But I read once that Japanese salarymen try to arrive to the office early, and will park in the back, so that those who were forced by circumstance to arrive closer to the time their job starts to park closer to the front. I think that’s bullshit for two reasons. One, people are selfish, even in the land of the rising sun. Being Japanese does not make you kind, even if the language seems angled that way and even if people seem kind on the streets in anime. (Anime is not real life.) But two, parking up front doesn’t get you in sooner. Leaving early does. At the speed I walk, parking at the outer edge of my job’s parking lot might make me come in a full minute later than parking in the closest available spot. So it’s not worth spending a minute or more looking for the ideal spot. Rather, I take the first spot I see and I save time. But not everyone is that logical. Now if you do the math, if you take the distance between your home and your job and you apply the legal speed, then you do the math and apply a higher speed, even going 10, 20 MPH over the speed limit, you’re saving mere minutes over a short commute and risking stiff legal penalties and further delays in dealing with the police (it takes them at least 10-15 minutes to ticket you). So again, leaving early is the ultimate “hack.” Seriously, leave five minutes early, take the first spot you see, you will make optimal time. That’s based on my commute. For a longer commute, add more time for safety.
Transit problems are solved by time, not speed.
As far as the smoker, yeah, people should not smoke in confined spaces. Or “vape.” It’s the same thing.
P.S. I already know I’m utterly insane. I just try to get through each day.