Handicap table: Ethics
Trying to keep things short because I am about to fall asleep…
Today after the long ASOC meeting Charlyn and I went to search for a place to study. First we ended up at Starbucks. Charlyn had a big math book she needs to use and I had a laptop that is 15-inch. Unfortunately, the starbucks we went to only had a comfy coach to sit on, or those small tables that would have been completely covered with Charlyn’s and I’s things leaving no room to really work on. But we had an option; the handicap table. At starbucks I laid my stuff down on the small table and intentionally leaving the handicap table vacant, and I do this for ethical reasons, I think. Anyways, we find out that starbucks was going to close soon, so we moved to Borders, which gave us an hour more to study. The same situation, but this time there was no table available but the handicap table. I said and decided that we shouldn’t for ethical reasons and sat at those individual comfy seats.
Questions: difference between handicap park, stall or table in this case?
Is there a moral obligation to keep those solely for the handicap, don’t think law wise; and if you can’t do that, what is the ethical rational for the law?
Why do I avoid the handicap parking, but not the handicap stall? Why do I avoid the handicap park, is it because I can get a ticket?
Help me understand the dilemma.
what are your thoughts… I am not writing an argumentative post right now because I NEED TO SLEEP, but I wanted to share.
Night!
Oh, Wayne Yuen, professor of philosophy as Ohlone posted something similar.
http://pilesofphilosophy.blogspot.com/2009/11/everyday-ethics-bathroom.html