This is actually a serious ethical question that ought to be be considered. From my observation what seems to be the case is that our friend Rebbecca here is attempting to decide what seat she can take in her friend’s snazzy convertible. It’s evident that there is only one seat available in the vehicle and it is in the back, BUT since Rebbecca is still pondering the question, one must assume that she is considering asking her friend to move so she can take shotgun. So the dilemma is as follows: take the seat in the back, or make her ***** friend move?

Depending on the ethical philosophy she subscribes to, there are several different ways she can come to make a decision. To start, she could take the deontologist (more specifically, the Kantian) route and consider the Categorical Imperative. In this case, she would be treating her friend (riding shotgun) as a means to an end, rather as an end in herself, which the Second Maxim of the Categorical Imperative specifically condemns. In addition, she must consider a hypothetical world where EVERYONE were as bitchy and selfish as to make people do a chinese fire drill so they can get the seat they wanted. And that would just ******* suck, now wouldn't’t it? Thus, she concludes to take the seat in the back.

Utilitarianism offers a similar conclusion but through consideration of an entirely different principle- the Principle of Utility. What action would bring the greatest amount of happiness to the most people? Taking shotgun would obviously maximize her own happiness, but that would make her an ethical egoist, which is not what we are considering at the moment (but certainly still a plausible theory to adhere to). Picking shotgun and making people move around would probably piss her friends off, so ultimately she would please everyone the most and avoid conflict if she just ******* took the back seat.

There are still some options yet to consider. Moral intuitionism would argue that Rebbecca shouldn't’t even have to go through the logical processes discussed above to reach a decision- her intuition should be telling her already that the only option that is really there is to take the back seat, because obviously her friend was there first. Also, doing an unjust act is bad for the soul, according to Plato- so she might be fulfilling her hedonistic desires but ultimately harming herself in the long run. OR she could get very abstract and question what would be the good thing for her to do since after all, what does good even mean anyways? Does it hold any sort of objective value at all, or is it purely an emotive exclamation?*

After considering this philosophical issue I don’t doubt Rebbecca’s intelligence- her question is obviously implying that she’s sorting through her moral principles and applicable rules. Good for her, I say.