Posts
Comments
How would they have to act for this to happen?
If someone suggested the idea of reducing your recline by 50% politely, would you really, in actual lived life, reply making a protest of your "rights"?
I implore you to really think of what this would be like in real life. Someone nicely asking for this. It's a long flight.
Also, to consider the views of other people here and the positive effects of your signaling is speculative at best. You don't know how people will perceive you. Sure, you think you are standing up for what is obviously you right. You have no way to verify this is what other's believe though.
That just seems like something rather shaky to consider a positive externality. Alternatively, you could maybe make the case that there is always value to protecting your rights, a la MLK's famous "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere", and I would salute your courage to die on that hill, as you surely would die.
What are some reasonable alternatives in the circumstance that someone is reclining unto your or requesting you un-recline?
That's not a bad point.
I think that other people consider this example as a means to discuss some far more abstract ideas of what is morally right in the situation. This was mentioned in my post as:
Is it appropriate for any person to recline their seat?
To which I said that there is a definite right answer to this question, based on the optimization of some dimension. This is always what is behind morality, in any case - It is just a rule for optimizing something, whether it be autonomy, privacy, etc.
What I should have also said here is that there is absolutely no way anyone is answering this question here. Furthermore, in the circumstance you find yourself reclining upon someone that does not want you to recline or vice versa, the answer to this question does not really matter.
In real, lived life your goal should not be to cause such a stir up in trivial situations like these. It doesn't matter who is correct in mathematical or philosophical sense. So if someone reclines unto you, ask a few times if they would un-recline a bit. Ask them a few times, but stay polite. If it's the opposite case, tell them you'll meet them half way.
I know that people may not see this as the point of the thread. Maybe I'm out of the loop, maybe I'm making something simple that should really be complicated.
Yes? And? Why should that result in expulsion from the flight?
You have totally missed the point of my link/example, which is that airlines can and do kick you off a flight for things that seem like very innocuous, harmless things—things that you never imagine would result in your expulsion. Can you predict with any great certainty that you won’t get kicked off a plane for harassing a fellow passenger? You absolutely cannot.
You are, at this point, not arguing with any good faith.
First, there are obvious, substantial differences between my post and your example.
Second, my original post, if read with the least possible charity, was not advocating for harassment. I wrote "Third, be polite. Some people recline. Regardless of what's right in a Kantian sense, not everyone's a Kantian, so just be nice. I know you may think the guy is a jerk, whatever."
you say “yes”; now you’ve admitted to doing what you’re accused of. Would an airline kick you off for that? Easily, and don’t even doubt it.)
Thanks bud, but I'll keep doubting this one.
There would be other passengers, in the least. This is really such a silly argument at this point. No airline is going to remove you for asking someone to un-recline their seat a few times.
As well? As well as what? The recliner complaining is what I was talking about.
As well as working towards a normal human compromise with the other passenger.
“The person in front of me reclined their seat”? They have a right to do that.
They have the right to do this so long as the aircraft materially allows it and the airline's T&C's contractually allow it.
I'm not going to waste my time working this out. You could make a request for some kind of change so that reclining is less easy, a person cannot recline as much, blah blah.
That man was removed from the plane because he Tweeted about the gate agent he was arguing with, publicly mentioning her name and the gate she was working at. Duff Watson, the man in that article you linked, mentioned the staff person's name and location.
That's not really a fitting comparison to what I am proposing. That cannot be used to say "But there is a single example of this occurring" ( i.e an instantiation ).
I am proposing a common sense, applicable solution in the case that someone finds themselves unable to perform certain tasks on a flight because the person in front of them is reclining.
Also, they can complain to the airline as well. There you go. The two are not mutually exclusive, nor did my original post explicitly advise against this.
My experience is the contrary. People find it quite tough to ignore someone speaking to them directly.
Furthermore, I never suggested doing anything that intrudes upon them. My advice is to restate your case a few times and aim for compromise. This is only as intrusive as the recline itself.
It's also worth noting that while you're not trying to be annoying, the recliner is likely to perceive you as such. You are not being intentionally annoying, though. This is something that ought to have been mentioned, admittedly.
Regarding the flight attendant comment, you have nothing to loose here but a short moment's embarrassment, if that.
There are three separate issues here.
One is - Is it appropriate for any person to recline their seat?
The other is - If you are a non-recliner and a seat is reclined unto you, what is the appropriate reaction?
The last is - If you recline unto a non-recliner and they ask for you to put your seat in the upright position, what is the ethical response?
For the first question, one way I can think to test this would be to examine the differences in total leg-room volume when everyone is not reclined against when everyone is reclined.
If I had more time in the day, I could certainly come up with more detailed, rigorous methods to discern the best possible outcome for passengers as it relates to reclining. There is some optimal answer here, so long as we choose our variable ( leg room, passenger satisfaction, etc. ). The best answer to this question would be based on the optimization of some dimension.
The second question is far more interesting. If you are a non-recliner a seat is reclined onto you, what do you do?
Your ultimate goal is to get the person to put their seat back to a more upright position. Your best bet is to remain truthful and look to elicit their sympathy. Also, be open to compromise. Do not expect them to go full upright.
First, I would see if there's an objective criteria that would allow you to ask for a decrease in their recline angle. Maybe you can't cross your legs. Maybe you can't read. Maybe the trey is hitting your stomach. There must be some material circumstance you can use as a basis for your case.
Second, I would ask for something specific, like "Can you move up half way?" Don't ask for them to go all the way up. They're going to interpret this as aggression and dig their heals in.
Third, be polite. Some people recline. Regardless of what's right in a Kantian sense, not everyone's a Kantian, so just be nice. I know you may think the guy is a jerk, whatever.
Finally, if they really try to jerk you around, stand your ground and just repeat your point. This is why you look for a really good objective basis. Just keep saying "Well, I know you wanna stay reclined, but I can't read my book". Eventually, people will change just because you're being annoying. Don't get angry, though. Just be annoying and seem sorta dumb.
The third question is somewhat answered by the previous. Meet the person half way. If they're being rude, tell them you don't appreciate their tone. I wouldn't recline all the way up unless they were really overweight, tall, or something else. Half way seems reasonable.
I've been typing this for too long. Hope everyone enjoys this. Interesting prompt.
Also, I am not trying to bash Friedman here. That's not the point of this post. The specifics of the example really are not as important as the general idea of the person referring to a thinker and then pivoting subjects quickly.
Hmm some of these people would, no doubt, turn out to be belief-in-believers if they were questioned.
Some of these cases are also no doubt cached thoughts, but I think a significant number are not.
I have a reply below to noggin-scratcher's comment that goes into this in more detail.
Hey, also - thanks for the comment.
I replied to this and a bit more below, in noggin-scratcher's comment.
p.s thanks for commenting
First, thanks a lot for replying. I love talking to people on this site and these are great questions.
I'm not 100% on what it means for an opinion to be an image of an image.
Now thinking, I firstly should have limited myself to "An image of a belief" instead of "An image of an image".
An image of a a belief would be something like this. Say you're at some kind of family friend event, and get to talking about economics.
The person you're talking to eventually says "I actually believe in trickle down economics, man. I just think that's the best system for this country, absolutely."
You reply "Oh, really. Why is that?" and he says "You know man, it's really just the way things work, like in reality. Hey, you ever listen to Milton Friedman? I like him a lot." And then the subject quickly changes, or maybe they just speak in vagaries of what Milton believes.
Really, they just have an image of Milton's opinion. They don't have anything of their own. I guess you could argue they may have a cached thought, but there's no doubt some instances where there wasn't any real opinion formed - the person listened to a few Milton lectures, had a strong feeling at some point watching them, does not remember a single thing from these lectures, but somehow feels as if this is an opinion. Maybe they read a book at some point, maybe they read two, but they never really examined and tested the idea for themselves, though.
I am saying this only because I have been guilty of this myself in the past. Heck, hopefully I'm not doing it now.
If it's not easily felt, nor easily identified by others, what are the subtle signs to look for
This is a bit tough to answer, admittedly. In the end, I suppose you could look for these
- The ability to speak for 5 - 10 minutes about the topic.
- The citation of specific examples.
- The ability to simply explain a new concept to you, à la Feynman.
- The knowledge of the arguments against their opinion.
- The admittance to the shortcomings of the position and instances where it cannot fully explain phenomenon.
Also, I say that a corollary to this is that I do not think many people actually have many opinions. They have mostly images.
I have some questions before I give any advice.
When you say your technical skills are "less than spectacular", what does this mean? Can you build software? Or do you have some kind of other employable skill that you have rehearsed the basics of?
The reason I ask this is because if your 22 and don't have a fundamental skill ( balancing books, writing code, etc. ), this should be #1 on your agenda. This is what allows you to write books, consult, etc.
Some questions:
- Do you feel like you lean more towards things with more upside?
- What kind of life do you want to live? It would be worthwhile to review #29 here.
- Who, in your life, do you look up to and want to emulate? Scientists? Business people?
What do you think of the below quote from Epicteus' Enchiridion?
49. When a man shows himself overly confident in ability to understand and interpret the works of Chrysippus, say to yourself, " Unless Chrysippus had written obscurely, this man would have nothing to be proud of.
But what do I desire? To understand the world and follow her.
I ask then - Who interprets the world? Finding Chrysippus does, I come to him. I don't understand his writings.
I seek, therefore, one to interpret them. So far there is nothing to be proud of. And when I find an interpreter, what remains is to make use of his instructions.
This alone is the valuable thing. But, if I admire nothing but merely the interpretation, what do I become more than a grammarian instead of a philosopher? It is just the case that instead of Homer I interpret Chrysippus.
However, when anyone desires me to read Chrysippus to him, I rather blush when I cannot point to acttion which are in harmony with his teaching.
Overall, should things even be this difficult to interpret? Are we valuing the simple ability to interpret these things, or are we actually valuing specific way of conduct that can be clearly gained from reading the text?
I really appreciated this post and thought it was quite a novel way of viewing situations where one must make a choice where while one option is the clear winner, there is still a lingering feeling of having lost something.
Your final conclusion here appears to be - Do not expect your new pleasures to replace the old.
You will still want these old joys - restaurants, bustle, packed gatherings. Plan for this, as it will not be replaced by the extra space or quietude of the suburbs.
This was very enjoyable read. Thanks for posting.
3: (Implicit) Encouragement does not do other important things → False
I am not certain if including this as an implication or negation of 1 and 2 was correct.
As far as I can imagine, one of these ( implication or negation ) would have to be the reason why you claim the statement to be implicit. I could break down Graham's statements into symbolic form and work this out like a true logician, but I'm a bit too lazy right now. There's just no statement that be negated to equal point 3, nor is the implication really clear.
Just to be clear - I do think think this is a meaningful point. I just don't think it's implicit to Graham's statement, observing the definition of "implied though not plainly expressed".
Anyway, I just thought this point was a bit of a stretch and overall not necessary. This is admittedly nit-picky, sorry.
Otherwise, I thought this was a great, meaningful analysis. #5 - #8 were particularly enjoyable.
I agree strongly with your final assessment of encouragement culture generally - there is far too much of it and it is patently insincere. The true reasons for this are as you stated - lack of motivation, awkwardness.
Thanks for posting.
Thanks for the list!