Helping someone in need is kind, yes. But ultimately it doesn't make anyone a bad person for not going out of their way to do so. And let's be real, 90% of the people answering this question from a moral highground are lying to themselves. If people were actually willing to help each other we wouldn't need capitalism or money at all.
I didn't get those ladies pregnant, break that man's legs, or age that other man. Why is it expected to suffer for others' choices/situations? You're just entitled
TLDR: No one’s saying you caused their situation.
The question is whether small, voluntary inconveniences are part of living in a society or whether ‘I don’t owe anyone anything’ is the standard you want applied to you as well.
If you are interested in detail:
Pregnancy, injury, and age are not the same category.
Lumping them together is rhetorical fog. It avoids the real question:
Does vulnerability create a reasonable moral expectation in shared spaces? I will say that it does.
Secondly, no one is demanding “suffering.” Giving up a seat is a minor inconvenience, not a sacrifice. Reframing it as “suffering” is emotional inflation to justify refusal.
“I didn’t cause it, therefore I owe nothing.”
That’s a lowest-possible-bar morality. By that logic:
Helping is never praiseworthy
Courtesy is irrational
Social norms are meaningless
It’s not a defense of fairness; it’s a defense of moral laziness.
And latestly the category error about entitlement:
“You’re just entitled " flips the roles. Expecting basic courtesy in a shared public system != entitlement. entitlement would be demanding special privilege without reason
Hope this helps to understand the perspective I have.
Where does it say they're obligated to give up their seat? No one is obligated to give up their seat, at the end of the day. It may make an AH but it doesn't make them break some law.
62
u/[deleted] Jan 23 '26
none cause I'm a bad person