Should we yield our seats to elders?
我們該為長者讓座嗎？
This issue often sparks heated debate in the news and on social media. After all, scenes of moral drama, in this case, conflicts on the MRT over whether to yield a seat, never fail to draw a crowd. When a young passenger is looking down at a phone while an older person stands nearby yelling, that single image is enough to trigger a trial by public opinion. Such stories spread quickly not only because they raise questions of fairness, but also because they reflect our deeper anxieties about respect, empathy, and the kind of society we hope to build.
這個議題時常在新聞上引發熱議。畢竟，捷運上為了是否讓座而爭吵的畫面，往往最具話題性。當一位年輕乘客低頭滑手機，而一位年長者卻站在一旁狂罵時，這樣的畫面便足以引發公審。此類新聞之所以傳播迅速，不僅因其觸及公平的議題，更是我們對尊重、同理心以及理想社會所反映出的深層焦慮。
In Taiwan, so-called “priority seats” have long been a flashpoint. Formerly called “courtesy seats” (博愛座), they were officially renamed “priority seats” (優先席) in 2025 to emphasize that seating is not charity, but access for those with real needs. New rules require that at least 15 percent of seats be designated as priority and broaden eligibility to anyone with a legitimate need, even when that need is not easily visible, such as people undergoing chemotherapy or living with a heart condition. This change acknowledges that we cannot always judge need at a glance.
在臺灣，「優先席」（priority seats）一直是爭議的焦點。以前叫做「博愛座」（courtesy seats），直到2025年才正式更名為「優先席」。改名旨在強調，座位本身並非一種施捨，而是確保真正有需要的人能夠使用。新的法規要求，至少15%的座位須設為優先席，並將適用對象擴大到任何一位有合理需求的人（即便這些需求未必可見），例如正在接受化療的人或心臟病患者。此一改變表明，肉眼未必總能看見每個人的需求。
Even with these efforts, fierce arguments over refusing to yield are bound to continue occurring. Such cases highlight the tension between individual freedom and social expectation. At times the conflicts stem from an inflated sense of entitlement, the assumption that one has an absolute right to a priority seat. At other times it arises because someone overlooks or ignores passengers with genuine needs. Of course, it may also be that a person is having a terrible day and simply loses control. In short, these clashes grow out of different understandings and interpretations of responsibility and need. They remind us that only through education, cultural reflection, and mutual empathy can we reduce misjudgments and ease tensions in public spaces.
即便做了上述努力，拒絕讓座所引發的激烈爭執仍時有所聞。這樣的情況凸顯了個人自由與社會期待之間的張力。有時，衝突肇於某些人不合理的「特權感」，理所當然地認為自己有享受優先席的絕對權利。另一些時候，則是因為有人忽視或無視了真正有需求的乘客。當然，也可能只是某人正度過極其糟糕的一天，從而情緒失控。換言之，這樣的矛盾源於人們對「責任」與「需求」的不同理解。這也提醒我們：唯有透過教育、文化反思與彼此的同理心，才能在公共空間中減少誤判、消解張力。
After becoming a father, I noticed a similar situation that tests the boundary between rules and care: entering elevators with a stroller. Many people ignore signs asking riders to yield to wheelchairs or strollers and push their way in. The result is that parents with strollers or wheelchair users are left waiting outside indefinitely, while the elevator is packed with seemingly healthy riders carrying no luggage, even when an escalator is right beside it. When someone speaks up for yielding, a chorus of objections often follows: “So regular people can’t use the elevator?”“Kids, elders, and pregnant women get special privileges?” You had a baby, now the whole world owes you a debt of gratitude?”“Why not just take a taxi?” These comments reveal a strain of misunderstanding and impatience in society.
在我成為父親後，也開始注意到另一個類似的情境，考驗著規則與關懷的界線：推著嬰兒車進電梯時。許多人進電梯時，往往會無視「禮讓輪椅或嬰兒車」的標示，而逕自擠進去。結果，推著嬰兒車的父母或坐著輪椅的人被擋在電梯外，而電梯裡卻擠滿了看似健康、身上也沒有行李的乘客（手扶梯明明就在旁邊）。一但有禮讓的聲音出現，便會引來反對的聲浪——「正常人就不能搭電梯嗎？」、「小孩、老人、孕婦就有特權嗎？」、「生了小孩全世界就欠你嗎？」、「不會去坐計程車噢？」此類言論反映出社會上的某種誤解與不耐煩。
Of course, there are also people who actively let strollers and wheelchairs enter first. These gestures may be small, but they lighten another person’s burden, both body and mind. Those who receive help are often willing to pass the kindness on. Public courtesy, in this sense, makes shared spaces more livable. Imagine if everyone cared about one another’s well-being; each of us would navigate the space between law and morality with far greater ease.
當然，也有人會主動讓嬰兒車與輪椅先進電梯。這些舉動或許微小，卻能真切地為他人的身心減輕負擔。而受到幫助的人也會願意把善意傳遞下去。換言之，社會禮節（public courtesy）反而能讓公共空間更加宜居。設想一下，若每人都關心彼此的福祉，那麼每位公民都能在法律與道德間游刃有餘。
In practice, the core problem is a mismatch between need and perception. For parents pushing strollers, elevators are not a convenience but a necessity, even more so for wheelchair users or those with limited mobility. Yet some people reduce this rightful use of a public resource to a claim of privilege. Without shared empathy, parents feel they are meeting basic needs, while others feel they are being forced to give way. This mirrors the controversy over seating. Clearly, laws and signs have limits, and civility often depends on small, everyday acts of care.
實際上，問題的癥結在於需求與認知的不對等。對推著嬰兒車的父母而言，搭乘電梯不是為了貪圖「方便」，而是切實的「需求」；對乘坐輪椅或行動不便的人而言，更是如此。但有些人卻將這種使用公共資源的需求，簡化為「特權」。在缺乏共感的情況下，父母覺得自己不過是滿足基本需求，而其他人卻覺得自己被迫讓步。這與讓座的爭議如出一轍。顯然，法規與標語力有未逮，而文明的存續有賴於那些看似微不足道的日常關懷。
Philosopher and educator, Nel Noddings (1929–2022) argued that caring relationships are the foundation of ethical life (Adhikari, 2023). In this context, yielding a seat or holding a door is more than etiquette; it makes care visible and affirms our interdependence. Noddings stated, “We are not obliged to care for everyone in the world. We are, however, obliged to care for those with whom we enter into relation” (1984/2003, p. 86). This obligation is not limited to family or friends. The moment we recognize another person’s need, for example an elder struggling to stand, a parent with a stroller, or any passenger needing space in the elevator, a relation has already begun. At that point we are no longer bystanders. Such awareness carries a moral claim; to respond affirms our shared humanity, while to ignore it denies the very conditions that allow society to endure.
教育哲學家諾丁斯（Nel Noddings, 1929–2022）曾指出關懷關係是倫理生活的基石。 (Adhikari et al., 2023) 。讓座或幫忙開門，不只是禮貌，而是讓關懷具體可見，是對人們相互依存的肯定。她也提醒我們：「我們並不需要去關懷世界上的所有人，但我們有義務去關懷那些與我們產生關係的人」（Noddings, 2003/1984, p. 86）。這不僅限於家人或朋友。在我們意識到他人需求的那一刻——一位勉強站立的老人、推著嬰兒車的父母、或等待電梯空間的乘客——「關係」便已經產生。轉瞬之間，我們不再是置身事外的旁觀者。我們感知到了他們的需求，而這種覺察帶來了一種道德上的義務：回應，是對我們所共有的人性的肯認；忽視，則是否認了社會得以存續的可能。
Thus, in a crowded MRT car or a packed elevator, we suddenly find ourselves in relation to strangers. If we truly hope to build a society grounded in dignity and trust, care is a necessity rather than an optional afterthought. The difficulty is that courtesy often collides with judgment. Some elders tend to view a young person in a priority seat as selfish. Yet need is not always easily visible, and suspicion easily turns spaces meant for kindness into arenas of conflict. In fact, many disputes over seating stem from such misjudgments. Changing education and culture toward assuming goodwill is every bit as important as changing the signs inside the cars.
因此，在擁擠的捷運車廂或電梯裡，我們突然與陌生人建立了關係。如果我們真心希望建立一個以尊嚴與信任為基礎的社會，那麼「關懷」便是必要條件，而非可有可無的選項。但難就難在好意往往與判斷相左。有些長者傾向於將一位坐在優先席上的年輕人視為自私的人。然而，需求並不總是可見，本該展現善意的地方卻因猜忌而引發衝突。許多關乎讓座的爭議正源於此類誤判。因此，改變教育與文化思維並相信人們立意良善，與更換車廂內的標示同樣重要。
So, should we give our seats to elders, to people with disabilities, or to others in need? If health permits, my (personal) answer is yes, and not merely because a rule says so. Yielding is an act of understanding that says, “I care, and I am willing to make room for you.” True care also means holding back from harsh judgments when another’s need is not obvious to us.
那麼，我們是否該為長者、身心障礙者或其他有需要的人讓座？我相信，如果健康允許，我個人答案是肯定的。但理由並非只是因為法規如此規定。讓座是種理解他人的行為，它傳遞的訊息是：「我關懷你，並願意為你騰出空間。」同時，真正的關懷也意味著，即便我們不清楚他人的需求時，仍能克制自己，不輕易作出嚴苛的判斷。
Some may ask whether “care” can really resolve these disputes. Unfortunately, even as a strong starting point, the answer is no. The causes of such social conflicts are complex, and there is no one-shot solution. Care is only one among many approaches. It helps us better understand such social tensions and address them with education over time. Because we must live with these unavoidable tensions, personal and structural alike, we need more care in daily life. It may not remake society, but it can help others in the moment and nourish ourselves, at times even putting an unexpected smile on your face.
但人們可能會問：「關懷」是否真能解決這些爭議？遺憾的是，即便這是一個良好的開端，答案仍是否定的。這些衝突的成因極為複雜，若以為有一勞永逸的方法，未免過於天真。「關懷」不過是眾多途徑中的一種，它能幫助我們更好地理解並在持續的過程中妥善應對這些問題。然而，正因為我們必須與這些矛盾共存，無論是個人的還是結構性的，都更需要在日常生活中多一點「關懷」。它或許無法徹底改變社會，卻能在當下幫助他人，也滋養我們自己；甚至，還會在不經意間帶來一抹意想不到的微笑。
References
Adhikari, A., Saha, B., & Sen, S. (2023). The perspectives of Noddings’ theory of care: Critically analysing iconic works. International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews, 4(9), 1349–1352. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373873836_The_Perspectives_of_Noddings’_Theory_of_Care_Critically_Analysing_Iconic_Works
Noddings, N. (2003). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education (2nd ed.). University of California Press. (Original work published 1984)
Noddings, N. (2013). Caring: A relational approach to ethics and moral education (2nd ed.). University of California Press.
Reddit user. (2023, November 9). Conversation on priority seats. Reddit: r/taiwan. https://www.reddit.com/r/taiwan/comments/17r55kt
Reddit user. (2024, February 2). Observations on elevator etiquette. Reddit: r/taiwan. https://www.reddit.com/r/taiwan/comments/1ahaoo9