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.
howrar@lemmy.ca 5 days ago
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.
quacky@lemmy.world 5 days ago
That’s the problem if they didn’t consider the limitations. It’s a irrational expectation for the bus to be 100% efficient and always on time. Nothing is 100% efficient. It’d be a faulty expectation to assume that things (other than death, disease, aging, etc.) are certain or guaranteed.
Everyone deserves empathy. All sentient beings, including this hypothetical man.
Again, all people deserve empathy. It seems that you’re making this a binary, “either/or”, dilemma when I believe both the angry transit operator and the smoker are “not ideal”, though I do have a bias toward the anger because that is aesthetically uglier than the smoking.
howrar@lemmy.ca 4 days ago
They did, and planned for it to the best of their abilities given the available resources. Being disabled doesn’t mean you stop trying to be a functional human being. The illogical thing to do is to sit at home and do nothing because you’re not 100% certain that things will go well. Because as you said,
So should we not strive to make things as predictable as possible?
And yet, your ideal scenarios, you keep favouring one person/group at the expense of another. I don’t know if empathy is the word you actually mean to use. You can empathize with everyone while still favouring specific people, but your examples suggest that you’re using “empathy” to mean the actions you take (or don’t take) to help someone rather than the emotional state. In that case, it’s is indeed a binary either/or. In your examples, what you do to help one person will negatively affect others.