4 ms·

One principle of politeness might be phrased as, "avoid (avoidable) behaviors that create only benefits for me and only inconveniences for the people around me.

One principle of politeness might be phrased as, "avoid (avoidable) behaviors that create only benefits for me and only inconveniences for the people around me." Taking your dog on a plane fails this test. Sure, some people don't mind. I mind. A lot. And so do a lot of other people. Bringing your dog on a plane means either not realizing or not caring that you're creating such a large disturbance for the rest of us, neither of which is a category to be proud of.

fbdjskajxb 9y ago
Babies are even more disruptive, from my experience. If people hate traveling with dogs or babies enough, they could pay for a more private form of transport. It’s not worth the price to me. Edited to remove option of banning the dogs (although, according to the story it seems like the airlines are able to restrict which dogs are allowed?).
- fra 9y ago
  Airlines cannot legally ban service animals.
  - dymk 9y ago
    A real service animal won’t be a nuisance to nearly everybody on board. The problem is that most dogs with vests on are not actually trained in basic obedience, much less to perform a medical service.
- david-gpu 9y ago
  My son is almost two and has never met his grandparents, who live in another continent. They are in poor health and can't travel themselves. How do you suggest we deal with this? A boat would be far too slow, and a private jet would be far too expensive. In these circumstances, I will bring my toddler in the plane, try to keep him quiet, and bring baggies with complimentary snacks and earplugs for the passengers sitting next to us. I don't think I can realistically do more than that. What I'm not going to do is wait five years until the child is older, because I have no assurance that my parents will be alive by then. Sorry if that inconveniences you.
  - chadash 9y ago
    Parent doesn't seem to be arguing that babies shouldn't be allowed on flights. Rather that people who don't like babies or dogs should find an alternative means of transportation.
  - xenophonf 9y ago
    I think you missed the commenter's point. He isn't saying that you shouldn't travel with your two-year-old. He's saying that if it really bothered him, he'd be willing to pay a more expensive fare for a more private method of travel. He isn't bothered enough, so he isn't willing to pay more.
  - dionidium 9y ago
    While it's true that babies are annoying, I subscribe to the (now apparently radical) belief that human babies are in a category that grants them more rights than pets. Travelling with a baby is sometimes unavoidable (or, as in the case you mention, generates such an enormous personal benefit that it outweighs the inconvenience to your fellow passengers). It is never necessary to fly with your dog uncaged in the main cabin. Ever. Full stop.
    - waster 9y ago
      Except for service dogs.
      - dionidium 9y ago
        You'll recall that the article we're all responding to -- and the entire point of this conversation -- discusses abuses of the service dog requirement.
  - Larrikin 9y ago
    Your parents being in poor health is not an avoidable situation. Planning a cross country vacation with a new born is pretty awful behavior though.
    - 9y ago
- dionidium 9y ago
  We could say this about allowing literally any level of disruptive behavior on public flights and conclude that, "hey, if you don't like it, then you can charter a private plane where you get to make the rules." By virtue of its universal applicability, your comment says everything and therefore nothing.
geofft 9y ago
> One principle of politeness might be phrased as, "avoid (avoidable) behaviors that create only benefits for me and only inconveniences for the people around me." I don't like this principle (or maybe I don't like politeness). By this principle, if I were a slave, it would be impolite to advocate for my freedom. That's an avoidable behavior; I can just keep working without pay. By this principle, if I were paralyzed, it would be impolite to ask people to have ramps and elevators. That's an avoidable behavior; it would be preferable to stay at home and wait to die. (Asking for ADA compliance is a huge disturbance!) The obvious rebuttal is "Well, those cases don't count because being a slave or being paralyzed is a fundamental unfairness and you can advocate to resolve or work around that," but the entire question is whether people who claim to need emotional support animals genuinely are in the same position or not, whether the emotional state they need support for is also a fundamental unfairness compare to the rest of us who don't claim to need such animals. So I don't think that the clarified principle actually helps us figure out what the right thing to do is; it just rephrases the question.
- dionidium 9y ago
  Yes, perhaps "avoidable" isn't the right word. You're right that this is entirely about evaluating and weighing the level of benefit against the level of inconvenience. It's rude to run through a crowded theater because you're in a hurry to leave. It isn't rude if you're making an emergency run to the bathroom. We all very clearly and intuitively understand this distinction. By the way, the whole point of politeness is that it requires these kinds of judgements and therefore resists strict rule-making. Ideally, we wouldn't need to make a rule about dogs on planes, because nervous flyers would feel individual shame at the idea of inconveniencing other people for their own personal benefit. I couldn't possibly bring my dog on a plane, not because of any rule, but because I'd be embarrassed and extremely uncomfortable about my own behavior. It would ultimately result in a worse experience for me, for those reasons. I'd be a self-conscious wreck.

fbdjskajxb 9y ago

Babies are even more disruptive, from my experience. If people hate traveling with dogs or babies enough, they could pay for a more private form of transport. It’s not worth the price to me. Edited to remove option of banning the dogs (although, according to the story it seems like the airlines are able to restrict which dogs are allowed?).

fra 9y ago
Airlines cannot legally ban service animals.
- dymk 9y ago
  A real service animal won’t be a nuisance to nearly everybody on board. The problem is that most dogs with vests on are not actually trained in basic obedience, much less to perform a medical service.
david-gpu 9y ago
My son is almost two and has never met his grandparents, who live in another continent. They are in poor health and can't travel themselves. How do you suggest we deal with this? A boat would be far too slow, and a private jet would be far too expensive. In these circumstances, I will bring my toddler in the plane, try to keep him quiet, and bring baggies with complimentary snacks and earplugs for the passengers sitting next to us. I don't think I can realistically do more than that. What I'm not going to do is wait five years until the child is older, because I have no assurance that my parents will be alive by then. Sorry if that inconveniences you.
- chadash 9y ago
  Parent doesn't seem to be arguing that babies shouldn't be allowed on flights. Rather that people who don't like babies or dogs should find an alternative means of transportation.
- xenophonf 9y ago
  I think you missed the commenter's point. He isn't saying that you shouldn't travel with your two-year-old. He's saying that if it really bothered him, he'd be willing to pay a more expensive fare for a more private method of travel. He isn't bothered enough, so he isn't willing to pay more.
- dionidium 9y ago
  While it's true that babies are annoying, I subscribe to the (now apparently radical) belief that human babies are in a category that grants them more rights than pets. Travelling with a baby is sometimes unavoidable (or, as in the case you mention, generates such an enormous personal benefit that it outweighs the inconvenience to your fellow passengers). It is never necessary to fly with your dog uncaged in the main cabin. Ever. Full stop.
  - waster 9y ago
    Except for service dogs.
    - dionidium 9y ago
      You'll recall that the article we're all responding to -- and the entire point of this conversation -- discusses abuses of the service dog requirement.
- Larrikin 9y ago
  Your parents being in poor health is not an avoidable situation. Planning a cross country vacation with a new born is pretty awful behavior though.
  - 9y ago
dionidium 9y ago
We could say this about allowing literally any level of disruptive behavior on public flights and conclude that, "hey, if you don't like it, then you can charter a private plane where you get to make the rules." By virtue of its universal applicability, your comment says everything and therefore nothing.

geofft 9y ago

> One principle of politeness might be phrased as, "avoid (avoidable) behaviors that create only benefits for me and only inconveniences for the people around me." I don't like this principle (or maybe I don't like politeness). By this principle, if I were a slave, it would be impolite to advocate for my freedom. That's an avoidable behavior; I can just keep working without pay. By this principle, if I were paralyzed, it would be impolite to ask people to have ramps and elevators. That's an avoidable behavior; it would be preferable to stay at home and wait to die. (Asking for ADA compliance is a huge disturbance!) The obvious rebuttal is "Well, those cases don't count because being a slave or being paralyzed is a fundamental unfairness and you can advocate to resolve or work around that," but the entire question is whether people who claim to need emotional support animals genuinely are in the same position or not, whether the emotional state they need support for is also a fundamental unfairness compare to the rest of us who don't claim to need such animals. So I don't think that the clarified principle actually helps us figure out what the right thing to do is; it just rephrases the question.

dionidium 9y ago
Yes, perhaps "avoidable" isn't the right word. You're right that this is entirely about evaluating and weighing the level of benefit against the level of inconvenience. It's rude to run through a crowded theater because you're in a hurry to leave. It isn't rude if you're making an emergency run to the bathroom. We all very clearly and intuitively understand this distinction. By the way, the whole point of politeness is that it requires these kinds of judgements and therefore resists strict rule-making. Ideally, we wouldn't need to make a rule about dogs on planes, because nervous flyers would feel individual shame at the idea of inconveniencing other people for their own personal benefit. I couldn't possibly bring my dog on a plane, not because of any rule, but because I'd be embarrassed and extremely uncomfortable about my own behavior. It would ultimately result in a worse experience for me, for those reasons. I'd be a self-conscious wreck.