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?
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.
not also deserve empathy?
Everyone deserves empathy. All sentient beings, including this hypothetical man.
Do all these other people not also deserve empathy?
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.
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,
Nothing is 100% efficient [or certain or guaranteed]
So should we not strive to make things as predictable as possible?
Everyone deserves empathy. All sentient beings, including this hypothetical man.
Again, all people deserve empathy
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.
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.
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.
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.