Philosophy
The old joke is, "A salesman tells an American that he has a new invention that will do half his work for him. The American replies, 'Great. Give me two.'" This sentiment comes to mind when I watch people and elevators.
Elevators are wonderful things. As a kid, they are incredible, magical little rooms where you get to push a button that lights up and without moving end up somewhere completely different. While there is surely nothing inherently wrong with taking the elevator, I've always been fascinated by people who will wait for long periods of time for the elevator to arrive in order to go one floor -- especially down. Limiting the discussion to able-bodied adults not carrying anything heavy, is there something morally problematic in relying on the elevator for short trips that you could perfectly easily do yourself? If so, on what grounds?
I suppose that you could argue it from a virtue ethics approach that this sort of sloth seems to be a vice. Maybe it is just residue from the Protestant work ethic, but the unwillingness to accept the slight discomfort from doing this minimal amount of work does appear to display a weakness of character.
From a deontological or duty-based view, there certainly is no absolute moral prohibition against elevators, but we would have a duty to promote our bodily health. Refusing to walk up or down a single flight of stairs is indicative of the ethical problems of the unhealthy American lifestyle that puts convenience before vigor.
A utilitarian could argue that while there is a slight gain in pleasure from not having to take the steps, ultimately the lack of health and the pollution from the energy needed for the unnecessary trip are harms that outweigh any benefits. When you look at the world that would be left when taking the stairs as opposed to the elevator, the better world lies in the stairwell. For this reason, we should walk rather than ride.
Another option is that taking the elevator is not morally problematic at all, but those who do take the stairs should be lauded for going above and beyond their duty for their willingness to do the little things.
Or maybe this is not a moral issue at all. There's nothing wrong with being lazy. We've got the capabilities, why not use them? so, today's questions are:
1) Is an ethical concern at all in unnecessary elevator use?
2) On what grounds?
3) If so, how many floors get you off the hook? Surely, we can't expect people to have to walk ten flights. How few floors up and how few floors down makes the elevator unnecessary from a moral point of view?
- Snark Bait
It's the end of the semester here in Ivory Towerland, meaning that everyone is alternating between punchy and pissy. What better time to unveil a new occasional series of posts I'm going to call "snark bait" in which a one-liner-worthy story is...
- Do You Have To Do Something To Do Something Good?
Whenever I teach ethics, one point in Kant's discussion that always gives rise to an interesting conversation is his claim that for an act to be of moral worth, it cannot serve any positive purpose for the person who does it. Even if it just makes...
- Utility And Relativism
A couple of ethics questions. Singpr asks, "Is utilitarianism the best available paradigm in evaluating social justice. What's problematic about it?" Utilitarianism is the moral view in which any act X is to be considered morally good if and only...
- Jeremy Bentham In The Lab
I've got a colleague who does pain research (and, no, there is no truth to the rumor that my 8 am logic class is one of his experiments). He studies physiological issues related to pain. Where pain is usually the result of an undesirable change to...
- Ethical Issue
Hmmmm, this is a tough one. I would keep the bucks and splurge on a bottle of Laphroaig 15 year old single malt scotch. How about you? "The Ethics of the Found $100 Bill" by Phyllis Messinger May 25th, 2010 The New York Times What would you do if you...
Philosophy
Elevator Ethics
The old joke is, "A salesman tells an American that he has a new invention that will do half his work for him. The American replies, 'Great. Give me two.'" This sentiment comes to mind when I watch people and elevators.
Elevators are wonderful things. As a kid, they are incredible, magical little rooms where you get to push a button that lights up and without moving end up somewhere completely different. While there is surely nothing inherently wrong with taking the elevator, I've always been fascinated by people who will wait for long periods of time for the elevator to arrive in order to go one floor -- especially down. Limiting the discussion to able-bodied adults not carrying anything heavy, is there something morally problematic in relying on the elevator for short trips that you could perfectly easily do yourself? If so, on what grounds?
I suppose that you could argue it from a virtue ethics approach that this sort of sloth seems to be a vice. Maybe it is just residue from the Protestant work ethic, but the unwillingness to accept the slight discomfort from doing this minimal amount of work does appear to display a weakness of character.
From a deontological or duty-based view, there certainly is no absolute moral prohibition against elevators, but we would have a duty to promote our bodily health. Refusing to walk up or down a single flight of stairs is indicative of the ethical problems of the unhealthy American lifestyle that puts convenience before vigor.
A utilitarian could argue that while there is a slight gain in pleasure from not having to take the steps, ultimately the lack of health and the pollution from the energy needed for the unnecessary trip are harms that outweigh any benefits. When you look at the world that would be left when taking the stairs as opposed to the elevator, the better world lies in the stairwell. For this reason, we should walk rather than ride.
Another option is that taking the elevator is not morally problematic at all, but those who do take the stairs should be lauded for going above and beyond their duty for their willingness to do the little things.
Or maybe this is not a moral issue at all. There's nothing wrong with being lazy. We've got the capabilities, why not use them? so, today's questions are:
1) Is an ethical concern at all in unnecessary elevator use?
2) On what grounds?
3) If so, how many floors get you off the hook? Surely, we can't expect people to have to walk ten flights. How few floors up and how few floors down makes the elevator unnecessary from a moral point of view?
- Snark Bait
It's the end of the semester here in Ivory Towerland, meaning that everyone is alternating between punchy and pissy. What better time to unveil a new occasional series of posts I'm going to call "snark bait" in which a one-liner-worthy story is...
- Do You Have To Do Something To Do Something Good?
Whenever I teach ethics, one point in Kant's discussion that always gives rise to an interesting conversation is his claim that for an act to be of moral worth, it cannot serve any positive purpose for the person who does it. Even if it just makes...
- Utility And Relativism
A couple of ethics questions. Singpr asks, "Is utilitarianism the best available paradigm in evaluating social justice. What's problematic about it?" Utilitarianism is the moral view in which any act X is to be considered morally good if and only...
- Jeremy Bentham In The Lab
I've got a colleague who does pain research (and, no, there is no truth to the rumor that my 8 am logic class is one of his experiments). He studies physiological issues related to pain. Where pain is usually the result of an undesirable change to...
- Ethical Issue
Hmmmm, this is a tough one. I would keep the bucks and splurge on a bottle of Laphroaig 15 year old single malt scotch. How about you? "The Ethics of the Found $100 Bill" by Phyllis Messinger May 25th, 2010 The New York Times What would you do if you...