>>When deciding whether something I’m doing makes “sense” morally and ethically, one point I find is useful is to ask “what if everybody did the same thing”.<<
I used to use that yardstick. I don’t any more because a great deal of normal human activity would be off limits using that reasoning. Fact is that many, if not most, of the public activities of people are possible because “most people” don’t do it.
What if everybody went to a Mariners game? For starters, tickets would be more expensive. :D
Well, beyond the unlikelyhood that everybody would want to go see the marineers, there is a limit to the number of tickets available. And yes, if there were regularly sell-outs, the team might well raise ticket prices, since that would allow the most interested people to get tickets.
It’s really a secondary delimiter. For example, I wouldn’t skip going to a national park because “if everybody did it, it would be too crowded”. That’s because I already passed the primary test — we are all invited to go to the national parks.
I’ve seen people get mad because they had to park at the far end of a lot, and when they get to the store, there are 5 empty handicap spaces. They say “Why are there so many spaces that aren’t used, I could have parked there!!”.
My response is — if there were only three handicap spaces, someone else would have already parked in the other two spaces. The only reason they were open was that it was illegal for others to park in them.
If a company decides to offer free internet for their customers, that might not be useful if a bunch of people park in the parking lot and use the connections. The store could set up limited access, but it makes it harder for customers. I think it’s nice for a company to be able to offer free wireless to customers, so I wouldn’t park in their parking lot and use it without asking first, because I can see how if everybody did it, the company would have to take away that service for their customers.