Nothing is simple for an ethicist…
Today, I was sent to the local CVS with an unusually long list. The store was almost empty, and only one clerk was checking out purchases. I had a full cart: paper goods, drinks, over the counter drugs, items on sale, all sorts of stuff.
One shopper was ahead of me in line, and just as she had paid, I noticed an older man standing nearby holding a single tube of ointment. “Go ahead, “I said. “Thanks,” he replied. For some reason the man’s transaction took an absurdly long time: he was chatting with the clerk, and wanted cash back, and he had some coupons. Just as he was done, an elderly woman holding two small cans of cat food walked up and raised her eyebrows at me.
“Sure, be my guest,” I said, smiling, but not really feeling the smile. I had run out with dinner waiting, and I wasn’t planning on my mission taking this long. Just as I motioned her ahead, another woman, younger than the cat lady, stepped up to me holding a bag of cough drops and a box of Nyquil. “Could I possibly go ahead too? My husband is so miserable!”
“Sure, no problem,” I said, not smiling this time.
And I wondered: what ethical principle would stop this from going on forever? From a Golden Rule perspective, every customer with a single item had a claim to my place in line. How could I suddenly treat, say, the fifth hopeful patron holding an aspirin bottle or a jar of antacids any differently than I had just treated someone else? When the next person who wanted me to save them a lot of time by deferring my large purchase was black, or Hispanic, or Muslim, should I factor into my decision of whether to let them go ahead too the fact that they might think I was biased against them if I finally exercised my right to go on to checkout myself ? After all, they might have seen me wave on three white customers—why not them?
At what point did one of these single item customers have an obligation to me? If they saw me be a good guy and let others go ahead, were they taking advantage of my considerate nature?
I once held the door open for a stranger at a restaurant, and about ten more people went in after her, as I stood there. The only one who said thank-you was the first.
I’d be interested in your thoughts.
Ethics Alarms 
It seems to me that you weren’t obligated to let anyone go in front of you. The real CVS etiquette is first come first served. If you choose to let one or two people go ahead of you because you want to be considerate that is fine but there is no obligation, ethical or otherwise, to do so. I’ve stood in line plenty of times with one or two items while someone with a large order was checked out. I may have been irritated and impatient but my impatience doesn’t automatically obligate other people to let me go ahead of them just because I have fewer items to buy then they do. Finally, wherever you decide to do your cutoff is up to you and if someone’s feelings get hurt because they have to wait, too bad.
It depends.
Offering your turn in the que is a gesture of politeness but that duty for politeness should be reserved for a single person or if you see that those behind you that you percieve will have difficulty physically standing for extended periods would suffer. There is no duty to relinquish your place in the que simply because it would convenience them to your detriment. In the end the decision is yours based on the circumstances surrounding your visit.
With that said most retailers will add cashiers when the cue grows to more than 3. A good portion of the responsibility for speedy checkout lirs with the store.
Give up your spot in line for the first one if you like and then move on the to the counter. It’s kind of like merging on the highway you don’t stop in you driving lane to allow every single vehicle extending to the horizon to go ahead of you, you let in one and then the person behind you does the same and so on.
Sometimes you setting the example for those that follow you in line by assisting one will inspire them to do the same; however, let in 10 and the people behind you are justifiable going to be pissed.
Accept the fact that it’s not your responsibility to server every single person on the planet, you are only one man.
Jack Marshall said below, “One clarification: there was never anyone behind me who was delayed by my allowing someone to go ahead of ME.”
Very valid point. Check out line etiquette would dictate that you don’t assume that it’s okay to delay everyone behind you to let someone in front of you. My highway entrance ramp analogy is invalid.
I’d still give up my spot in line once in that situation and then move on the to the check out counter.
Presuming that your errand was purposed for the well being of your family, with regard to the stopping point, your wife is as much your neighbor as any, and more than merely your neighbor as well.
Is it too much to consider, “Do to others” is an application of “Love your neighbor as your self”: the love that you give to your wife by establishing your turn in line, is equal in merit and health for society if not greater on the basis of loving your wife as Christ loved the church by laying down his life for her?
I don’t have an answer for this. My gut instinct is that any considerations that take race, or other “politically correct” groups into account is automatically prejudiced in the original non-politically correct meaning of prejudiced. “Any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable. ”
I do let people in line in front of me on occasion, but no one has ever thought that that meant every future small purchase is included in the courtesy.
I have to wonder about the people who step in front without me waving them there. Maybe let just one in front, then say sorry, I’m on a deadline to the rest.
The store bears some responsibility for this if they don’t have enough cashiers to handle a rush.
I concur with all of the above. The only thing I can add is handy labels: “Honor” is orderly eusocial behavior; that is, what you are generally expected to do, whether enshrined in law or not. “Compassion” is chaotic eusocial behavior; that is, that which goes above and beyond requirements and cannot be expected or mandated. What people consider “eusocial” varies, and therefore so do the behaviors that are considered honorable or compassionate, but principle is the same: behaviors that improve the wellbeing of others.
Waiting in line behind a person with fifty items when you have only one is honorable. It is a standard you are held to (sometimes to which you hold yourself, which is more impressive) and which is designed, in theory, to improve wellbeing across society. Letting the only other person in the store cut in front of you is compassionate. It will make their day better, but it is something they cannot expect you to do, or it would destroy the benefits that the honorable standard confers upon society.
Does that make sense? I’ll elaborate more in the trolley problem post later on.
I think this is my favorite response.
1) From my own experience, I generally feel comfortable taking my position in line and not letting others go ahead of me for exactly the scenario you had with the first person you let ahead of you. I know when it’s my turn at the register that I’ll be quick with no special problems. Bar codes will be ready to be scanned and coupons already clipped and in-date.
I might let someone in if I’m trying to be particularly nice or trying to kill time…but once I’m ready to move on, I take my place assured that I won’t take any more time than needed at the register.
….
2) Now, I’ve got a weird philosophy when it comes to fate and the whole “everything happens for a reason”. Especially when it comes to traffic. I truly believe that life magically throws situations like that into your experience to slow you down because if you had checked out first, you would have exited the parking lot at a different moment and had a fatal collision. When you listen to your gut and let people in and change your timeline, it’s for your own protection.
A great and sometimes troubling subject. The simple quandary — It is okay to let someone go ahead of you in line anytime you want — as long as you are the ONLY person in line or if the person that wants to cut is directly behind you in the actual line. If there are others behind you then I don’t believe it’s okay.
The one you dealt with – multiple people asking to cut in – you have to ask “where does it stop?” Is it fair to eventually say no to the fourth or fifth person? However, if you say yes, you’re promoting the idea that the order of service should be based on the size of the customer’s order, rather than first come.
If there is a longer line of people and someone is asking to cut in line a good response is to look back at the line of people and say ‘as long as it’s okay with everyone else.’
Good responses, so far! One clarification: there was never anyone behind me who was delayed by my allowing someone to go ahead of ME. I was always the end of the line. I wouldn’t have let someone cut in on anyone but me.
Huh?!?!?
If you’re 5th and you let 6th cut, mathematically you have not delayed 7th 8th or 9th….
If you’re 5th and you let 9th cut then yes, mathematically you have delayed 6th, 7th, and 8th….
That was never the situation. Each individual was #2, behind me, In succession. When I let one go ahead, the new #2 showed up. I was like magic. That’s also why there was never a second clerk and line. There were never more than three invlved customers at a time. It played like a Candid Camera bit.
Then that makes it even easier. And the solution is more communication.
Don’t make a Golden Rule *assumption* when you could just get the answer outright…
(Golden Rule still doesn’t apply, but if you feel it does, just ask and find out)
CVS is missing an opportunity to set up a separate line for those with 5 items or less. When I go to the local grocery store and they have a 15 item or less line and some lunkhead has 30 item in their cart in front of me, I can at least roll my eyes at them and loudly sigh in disgust.
I think of it as merging into the exit lane. The first person is fine, but then it’s your turn. It’s not appropriate for others to judge your purchases whether it is your hair gel or cold medication. What happens behind you is on the good will of other customers toward to each other.
Except that the analogy is very imperfect. Imagine if one car took five ties longer to me4rge than any of the others.
Well this makes me feel better about my post below.
TIMES! MERGE!
You also shoot yourself in the foot by doing this at cvs. Most people coming in there are probably grabbing something quick and getting out (I know I treat cvs and Walgreens like convenience stores).
You’d never get out of there!
Short, shot, close enough!
As long as you don’t shoot yourself in the shorts.
When I let people ahead in line and do the very same things you’ve done to show class, when I get annoyed, I remind myself that just because others may not be appreciative or are sensitive, the reason I was courteous in the first place was because it was the polite and right thing to do. Having class is a virtue. Getting mad at the ignorant is not.
Within the alternatives given, I too vote for the “one only” though it doesn’t do to step aside completely: as soon as you do that, you’re inviting everyone else to step up. However, this is a moot point with any CVS store in the Bay Area — it is the flagship drug ‘n sundry store for DIY check-out machines. Safeway runs a close second in mechanization, though as an adjunct to their human checker lanes. Now Walgreen’s, which has morphed into the neighborhood mom ‘n pop grocery under the umbrella of its New York Times policy (“everything that fits, we sell”) while we weren’t looking . . . that’s another long, long line altogether.
” From a Golden Rule perspective, every customer with a single item had a claim to my place in line.”
Because it isn’t a Golden Rule issue.
Everyone going to the store assumes the possibility they will be waiting in line. Your actions are a *favor*. Above and beyond ethics. Not merely being base ethical.
No one had a claim to your space in line. For all you knew the person with one item *could’ve* been delayed 5 hours and been fine instead of you saving them literally the 5 minutes additionally they would’ve waited. I think you are skewing your analysis because modern culture teaches us all that we have to be done NOW!
Nope. We don’t. They got in line reasonably expecting a 10-15 minute wait. Saving them 4-5 minutes is therefore an *above and beyond* ethics issue and outside Golden Rule expectations.
“How could I suddenly treat, say, the fifth hopeful patron holding an aspirin bottle or a jar of antacids any differently than I had just treated someone else?”
Because there is no obligation of consistency in this scenario.
And a simple “hey I’m sorry, I gotta check out and I let 4 other people cut” would solve all the problems.
I’ve discovered that in many of these ethics quizzes, simple, polite communication goes a long way to solving these conundrums.
” When the next person who wanted me to save them a lot of time by deferring my large purchase was black, or Hispanic, or Muslim, should I factor into my decision of whether to let them go ahead too the fact that they might think I was biased against them if I finally exercised my right to go on to checkout myself ? After all, they might have seen me wave on three white customers—why not them?”
It’s not your problem to worry if someone has their own racist chips on their shoulder. If they do, deal with it then. If they don’t then good, carry on like good fellow Americans.
This is the “don’t draw Mohammad because Muslims might burn a city down in the Middle East” fallacy in the small scale.
Ugh that’s type laden.
Typo*
I quit.
I fixed them all…
Thank you!
I was in a hotel in Mobile, AL, typing from my phone…
1. I don’t recall Jesus, Zoroaster, Buddha and the rest ever noting the CVS exception.
2. The GR has nothing to do with an obligation. It is never an obligation. It is based on altruism.
3. Behaving with kindness and consideration to one does not in any way change the altruistic value of the conduct to the next, or the next.
4. As to the appearance of bias, ethics involves taking reasonable measures to avid causing gratuitous harm. Every time we give someone a reason to believe that society is aligned against them, we do our little part to make society less unified.
“Every time we give someone a reason to believe that society is aligned against them, we do our little part to make society less unified.”
I couldn’t agree more. Also the reverse. When we give someone a reason to believe that society is aligned for certain groups.
I’ll have a response before tomorrow morning.
“1. I don’t recall Jesus, Zoroaster, Buddha and the rest ever noting the CVS exception.”
I don’t recall ever noting an exception either…since this isn’t necessarily Golden Rule territory. In this scenario, application of the Golden Rule would arise as the exception.
“2. The GR has nothing to do with an obligation. It is never an obligation. It is based on altruism.”
It is very much about obligation– and obligation isn’t a dirty word. The real question here is where do you draw the line on whose needs outweigh the others, and if they really do or not. Golden Rule would compel you to allow someone to cut if their cutting *actually* decreases *actual* harm. Golden Rule doesn’t compel you to allow someone to cut *just because* it increases an already-present level of contentment in their lives. It may strongly suggest such conduct in so much as it doesn’t needlessly impose on you, but it no means compels it, hence this isn’t necessarily a Golden Rule scenario.
You see, “so whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets” is a painfully open ended, and as such-much criticized maxim, when taken out of context. So, the GOlden Rule IS the Law. Looking at the phrase elsewhere one would glean that ALL the Law, and therefore the Golden Rule, depends on two basic commands:
“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind”
“You shall love your neighbor as yourself”
We often forget that these *two* commands consist of *three* considerations. The first (God-oriented) is easy, the 2nd (others-oriented) is also easy, but we immediately fail to recognize that the 2nd is conditioned on a 3rd (yourself). How can you love others first if you don’t love yourself? This opens a huge discussion on mental and psychological issues. It certainly leads one to understand masochist conduct DOES NOT guide the application of the Golden Rule.
So what then of the scenario of the endless line cutting because you would want everyone to let you cut, therefore you must let them cut…? Well, you fail to switch positions in your consideration, when you run across the poor shmuck who has caught himself in an endless loop allowing others to cut, do you not, as his next beneficiary recognize his own plight, apply you own consderation to him and say “no, by all means, go ahead before me”?
Of course.
And you know how this is handled quickly and in the short term? Communication.
“3. Behaving with kindness and consideration to one does not in any way change the altruistic value of the conduct to the next, or the next.”
Nor does it diminish or make wrong, treating someone in a manner that is merely base ethical, even if before you were treating someone prior with exemplary or above-and-beyond ethics.
“4. As to the appearance of bias, ethics involves taking reasonable measures to avid causing gratuitous harm. Every time we give someone a reason to believe that society is aligned against them, we do our little part to make society less unified.”
Then talk to them…
I’m not sure why this ethics condundrum insists on the actors assuming everything about everyone and making decisions based merely on programming…
Comment of the Day…
Ominous…
Can’t wait for the skewering.
My thoughts now are, I don’t let anyone ahead anymore. I got stuck in those scenarios way too many times and finally learned.
THAT being said… I did break my rule the other day… and the person had crying kids and looked miserable. So I let her go ahead and played with the kids… and it was fun. But that was a special circumstance. poor lady.
I think you are very kind and there’s no rule that says if you have a lot of stuff you have to let someone with less go first. Your time is just as valuable as their time is and you are just as deserving to take your rightful place in line.
If you both approach at the same time, then I think letting the other with less going first is kind.
So, Jack… YOUR time is just as valuable. They can wait their turn and it’s NOT your fault!!
YOU rock 🙂
“At what point did one of these single item customers have an obligation to me? If they saw me be a good guy and let others go ahead, were they taking advantage of my considerate nature?”
Yes, and yes. I wouldn’t ask someone to go ahead of them, even if I saw them let someone else. What makes my time more important than others? If offered, then yes, but to take advantage of your kindness is wrong.
If I only have one or two items, I go through the self-checkout line.
I will let one person cut in front of me if I have a lot of items, that’s it.
Also, I never “ask” to be given preferential treatment.
Too comical not to pass on to you. Self-checkouts hate me. I have never managed to get through one without a problem of some sort. Once, I even managed to crash the self-checkout at a Wal-Mart.
Golden Rule interpretation:
Would you always expect someone with a cartload to let you check out ahead of them? I bet you wouldn’t, you’d only ask if you had a good reason. So too the woman who said ‘Let me go first because my husband is miserable’, you could have said, ‘What a coincidence, I am miserable too’
Golden rule cuts both ways in my view
Your view isn’t the Golden Rule. “Do unto other as you expect others to do unto you” isn’t the rule, or the point. The point is to treat others ideally, not as most people would.
That’s a great point Jack. The Golden Rule (“as you would have others do unto you…”) often fails if applied literally. As my wife always tells me, “just because YOU would prefer to be left alone or not invited to parties, does not mean that you should treat others similarly,” even if its my own weird preference. Of course she’s right.
Please elaborate further.
How would the Golden Rule work in the criminal justice system?
Here are rhetorical questions for everyone in this thread;
What would you do if the situation was reversed; if you approach the only checkout line available with one item in your hand and the last person in line has huge cart laden with stuff, would you have any line etiquette “expectations”? If you would have expectations; why?
Now if a cart laden person offered their place in line to you because you only have one item, would you accept their offer or would you politely decline and tell them you’re in absolutely no hurry and strike up a friendly conversation? Life is too short and we just don’t talk to each other enough; I’d choose the latter but I’m one of “those” people that will strike up conversations with strangers on an elevator too.
I’m going to answer both of these even though they are designated rhetorical.
I would not have any expectations to be let ahead in line. First come first served.
I would accept the offer because I am NOT one of those people who will strike up a conversation with strangers. I’m a person who sometimes avoids a conversation even with people I know. I just don’t like to “visit” with people. It takes too much emotional energy.
Hey Jack- hope you’re well. Dan Murphy here… for all the reasons you stated, I have a policy of first come first served. No one gets their feelings hurt and everyone knows what the expectation is.
If you wanted to go ahead of me, you should have gotten there sooner… case closed…. I don’t even mentally debate it…. 🙂