I’d say, a reclined seat in front of you is a tiny inconvenience at most, just let it go instead of making up your own etiquette, pretending it’s the only right one and arguing about it with others.
If we all agreed that one was worse/better than the other, we wouldn’t have this debate.
This seems clearly false, given that at least some of the arguments given in this debate even in this very comments section do not depend on the relative utilities involved.
Sorry for being unclear. If everyone agreed about utility of one over the other, the airlines would enable/disable seat reclining accordingly. Everyone doesn’t agree, so they haven’t.
(Um, I seem to have revealed which side of this I’m on, indirectly.)
Hmm, but seat reclining is enabled… and yet not everyone agrees. So if everyone agreed… what would change, exactly…?
I’m not actually sure why it would change in any event. Let’s say that everyone agreed that the disutility of not reclining exceeded the disutility of sitting behind a reclined seat. But… that wouldn’t make everyone into utilitarians. Despite agreeing on the result of that comparison, people would still prefer not to sit behind a reclined seat, while also preferring to recline when they wanted to do so.
So… it doesn’t seem to me like universal agreement, in the way you say, would change… anything, really?
It is bad if you are tall, regardless of reclining. I guess an aisle seat or an emergency exit row offers a bit of a reprieve without extra cost. There is also business class, for those who can afford it.
I’d say, a reclined seat in front of you is a tiny inconvenience at most, just let it go instead of making up your own etiquette, pretending it’s the only right one and arguing about it with others.
The problem is that people have different levels of utility from reclining, and different levels of disutility from being reclined upon.
If we all agreed that one was worse/better than the other, we wouldn’t have this debate.
This seems clearly false, given that at least some of the arguments given in this debate even in this very comments section do not depend on the relative utilities involved.
Sorry for being unclear. If everyone agreed about utility of one over the other, the airlines would enable/disable seat reclining accordingly. Everyone doesn’t agree, so they haven’t.
(Um, I seem to have revealed which side of this I’m on, indirectly.)
Hmm, but seat reclining is enabled… and yet not everyone agrees. So if everyone agreed… what would change, exactly…?
I’m not actually sure why it would change in any event. Let’s say that everyone agreed that the disutility of not reclining exceeded the disutility of sitting behind a reclined seat. But… that wouldn’t make everyone into utilitarians. Despite agreeing on the result of that comparison, people would still prefer not to sit behind a reclined seat, while also preferring to recline when they wanted to do so.
So… it doesn’t seem to me like universal agreement, in the way you say, would change… anything, really?
It’s pretty bad if you are tall anf it’s a cramped leg room.
It is bad if you are tall, regardless of reclining. I guess an aisle seat or an emergency exit row offers a bit of a reprieve without extra cost. There is also business class, for those who can afford it.