The Ethicist

SHUTTLE HOPPING

To avoid driving to the airport and paying for parking, my son instead walks a few blocks to a major chain hotel and takes the free shuttle bus that transports hotel guests to the airport. Some have argued that this is improper, but my son says that since the shuttle is operating anyway, there is no additional cost to the hotel. My son also tips the shuttle driver. What is your opinion? ANONYMOUS, EAST NORTHPORT, N.Y.

It’s easy to make the accusation that your son is acting unethically ­ — he’s taking something that is offered to paying guests without being a paying guest. I would assume that those who make this criticism argue that this is no different than if he walked into the lobby at 8:30 a.m. and ate the complimentary continental breakfast.

If you put a gun to my head and asked, “Is this a form of stealing?” I would be forced to say that it is (and that if everyone in society did this, free hotel shuttles would cease to exist). If I had to answer this question with a one-word answer, my only option would be to write “unethical.”

But I’ve been thinking about this all week, and I can’t see one downside to what your son is doing. He’s not causing any employee to do anything that he or she would not be doing already (and is actually adding to the driver’s tip collection, which is probably a main source of his or her income). He’s also decreasing his carbon footprint by car-pooling instead of driving his own vehicle (this is obviously a minor detail, but this is a minor conflict). If the shuttle is filled to capacity, your son should not take a seat in place of any paying hotel guest, and he should never request a shuttle if one isn’t already scheduled. But this is an unethical act with no negative consequence. It’s wrong in theory, but not in practice.

This article from the ethecist deals with the question of whether someone should used a hotel's shuttle services in order to avoid driving to the airpot and paying for parking while not being a guest from the hotel. The ethecist reaches the conclusion that in theory, yes, it is unethical for this person to do such thing because he does not contribute to the functionality of the hotel and still gets its benefits. But at the same time, he says that in practice, it is not because the shuttle would be operating even if he were not there and he also contributes to the tip the bus driver gets. Both of these conclusions seem to carry great weight to them, but at the same time, a couple of things could be considered before reaching a completely thought-out point on this. It is established that what this man does, in theory, is quite immoral. For you could call him a opportunist who chooses to take pleasure out of the work of others without even contributing to it. It should be taken into the account that whether or not the bus would still be functioning, this man could be viewed not only as an externality for the hotel, but also as a burden. He is not entitled to the service because he is not a guest of the hotel. What if a guest from the hotel, one day, does not manage to get a seat on the bus because this one man, who is not a guest, is sitting in it? Obviously, this is a hypothetical situation in where we would assume the bus is packed, but it is something worth considering. Because that man is occupying a seat he shouldn't otherwise be, how does this reflect on the hotel? Not only would this affect the hotel negatively because a costumer can't get to the airpot, but it would also affect the customer because he wouldn't be getting to where he needs to be because this one man, who again, is not a hotel guest, is occupying a seat. As so it is important to consider that this man's actions do have certain repercussions that could effectively affect other people. And even though the chances that my hypothetical question ever comes into existence are minimal, when talking about moral and ethics, a lot of things have to be presupposed   and taken into account. In the end, I do agree with the ethicist and would say that in theory, what this man does it unethical because he act opportunistically, but in practice, he's actions seems to have no major consequences. But then again, the study of ethics is not so much based on what is practice and what is theory, but yes a reflection of what the conscious perceives as true through a series of complex logical patterns of thinking and biases.