In this blog post, I will examine the issue of private seating in the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering’s study room from the perspectives of the study room’s purpose, utilitarianism, and equality, and through this, reflect on what kind of ethical consciousness is necessary for engineers.

Why does the problem of seat hoarding in the study room keep recurring?

On November 21, 2012, the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Seoul National University collected all personal belongings that had been piled up in the department’s study room and posted a notice at the entrance stating that it would not tolerate seat hoarding—that is, the exclusive use of seats by individuals. This action was taken at the instruction of the department chair in response to growing dissatisfaction and a steady stream of student complaints regarding seat hoarding. During periods when the reading room is not as crowded—such as at the beginning of the semester—there are more empty seats than reserved ones, so the issue seems minor. However, once the first exam period begins, the number of users increases, reducing the number of available seats and causing significant inconvenience for many. Furthermore, a vicious cycle has developed in which those experiencing this inconvenience end up reserving the few remaining seats for themselves. As a result, reserved seats account for more than 40% of the total seating capacity during exam periods, and it is not uncommon for students who visit the reading room to study during their free periods to leave disappointed upon seeing empty seats with only books left on them.
This practice of reserving seats in the study room—which has existed since I enrolled at Seoul National University and began using the Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department’s study room—persists to this day despite the efforts of many to eliminate it. There have been various efforts to combat this practice—some people have posted notices decrying students’ selfishness, which goes beyond mere individualism, while others have taken it upon themselves to clear out reserved seats—but these efforts have typically only temporarily curbed the problem and have failed to provide a fundamental solution. To fundamentally eliminate the practice of reserving seats, it is necessary to clear out the spaces occupied by those who do so, making conflict with them inevitable. However, the reservation of seats in the reading room is often carried out by classmates or seniors and juniors within the same department. Because everyone knows each other, people are actually reluctant to point out the problem or speak up.
The fact that seat-hoarding persists despite years of efforts to reclaim seats and announcements by the department chair may be due to the study room’s operational system not being well-established; however, the most obvious and central reason is the underlying assumption that seat-hoarding is not a major moral issue. Examining the justifications used by those who reserve seats, at the beginning of the semester when there are few users, they think, “There are so many seats available; taking one won’t make much of a difference.” Later in the semester, when usage increases, they reason, “Everyone else is doing it; if I don’t, I’ll be the only one at a disadvantage.” The common thread in these lines of reasoning is that while they do not dispute that their behavior is morally problematic, they view the need to permanently secure a seat as outweighing their moral responsibility. In the former case, they consider their moral responsibility to be small because there are many vacant seats; in the latter case, they consider their moral responsibility to be relatively small because there are many reserved seats, leading them to believe the need to secure a permanent seat is greater. Therefore, it is important to make those who reserve seats aware that the moral responsibility for doing so is far greater than they realize, and to this end, it is necessary to enlighten them—from various perspectives—on why seat-reservation is morally wrong. In this article, I will explain why the act of seat-reservation is morally wrong from the perspective of the purpose of operating school reading rooms, a utilitarian perspective, and the qualifications required to reserve a seat.

The Purpose of Study Rooms and the Justification of Private Use

When using an object or space, we can only justify that use if it aligns with the intended purpose of that object or space. For example, if you have a kitchen knife used for cutting tuna, using it to cut tuna is justified. However, problems arise if you use that same knife to cut other types of fish. This is because the kitchen knife used to cut other fish retains the fishy odor of those fish, and using it to cut tuna could severely alter the tuna’s flavor. In this way, every object or space has its own purpose, and using it in accordance with that purpose constitutes its proper use. In other words, if an object is not used for its intended purpose, the justification for using it is lost. Returning to the issue of “private use,” regardless of whether the act itself is right or wrong, it can be viewed as one way to use the study room. However, even if the act is one way to use a seat in the study room, that method of use can only be justified if it aligns with the study room’s purpose and the values that method aims to uphold.
So, what is the purpose of the study room? The purpose of the study room can be divided into the purpose of the individual study room seat—a small space—and the purpose of the study room as a whole—a larger space. First, a study room seat is a small space that people can use for studying. This is evident from the fact that various items are provided at each seat to enable users to study. Next, considering the purpose of the study room itself, the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering’s study room restricts access to students in that department; this implies that anyone wishing to use the study room must qualify as a student in the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering. Furthermore, unlike a personal study or a private study room, the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering’s study room is a space used by all members of the department. The fact that all members use it implies that all members have the right to use the reading room. However, the reading room is too small for all members to use simultaneously. Therefore, ensuring that as many members as possible can use the reading room is also one of its purposes. In other words, it is clear that the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering’s reading room was created with the purpose of enabling students in that department to use the space to study.
Let’s examine how the practice of “reserving seats” in the study room violates this purpose in certain respects. At first glance, reserving seats might seem like an efficient and purpose-driven use of the study room—a space intended for students—since those who do so are doing it to study steadily for extended periods. Since they are doing this to ensure a stable study environment for themselves, it appears they are using the study room in a manner consistent with its purpose as a space created for studying. However, as we examined earlier, the study room is designed to allow as many people as possible to sit and study there. While sitting in a seat and studying, one could be said to be using the space in accordance with its intended purpose; however, leaving one’s seat and placing personal belongings there to reserve it serves, first, to use that seat as a personal storage space—which contradicts the purpose of the study room, which is to read and study—and, second, prevents others from using the study room, thereby contradicting the study room’s fundamental purpose of allowing as many members as possible to study.
Thus, it is clear that reserving a seat in this manner is a use of the reading room that does not align with its intended purpose. Therefore, from a teleological perspective, reserving a seat lacks legitimacy as an act of using the reading room.

Reserving Seats from a Utilitarian Perspective

Let us now examine the issue of reserving seats from a utilitarian perspective. Utilitarianism is an ethical position that holds that the rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by how much it contributes to increasing human benefit and happiness. For example, imagine a spaceship drifting alone in space with four shipwrecked survivors on board. They were starving and exhausted, and would have died without food, so they killed one of their own, ate his flesh, and survived to be rescued. If they had not eaten human flesh, there would have been only four deaths; however, by eating human flesh, three survivors emerged. Utilitarianism is the philosophy that judges the reason why the latter scenario—resulting in three survivors—is preferable to the former scenario—resulting in four deaths—by comparing the human values of “zero survivors” versus “three survivors.”Let’s examine the rightness or wrongness of reserving seats in a study room based on the utilitarian principle described above. First, we will judge the rightness or wrongness of using the study room based on the seat occupancy rate and the level of satisfaction derived from the seats. The seat occupancy rate is determined by how many people are seated in the study room, while satisfaction is determined by the difference in user satisfaction based on the equipment provided at each seat. The Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering’s study room has 50 seats, of which about 10 are equipped with personal lighting. Since students using these seats have a higher level of satisfaction than those using standard seats, they tend to try to secure these seats first when using the study room. This is a common trend among students who reserve seats, and therefore, these seats are the first to be reserved. Thus, if the seats with lighting are reserved, even assuming the reading room is not yet full and that all students wishing to use it could do so, users are left with no choice but to study at standard seats, which offer lower satisfaction than the lighting-equipped seats. This is an undesirable situation because it is clear that user satisfaction is significantly lower when the lit seats are reserved than when they are not. Furthermore, when the number of users increases to the point where no seats remain, the high number of reserved seats prevents people from using the study room, leaving only personal belongings in those seats. Since this prevents students from using seats that would otherwise be available, the study room’s utilization rate will be lower by the number of vacant seats compared to a situation without seat reservation—a situation that is undesirable for the study room’s operation.

The Legitimacy of Claiming Seats from an Equality Perspective

Finally, I will examine the legitimacy of claiming seats from the perspective of equality—specifically, whether students are entitled to do so. Students admitted to the School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering may have followed different paths to enrollment, but they all entered through legitimate procedures. Excluding scholarships, they all pay the same tuition, and therefore, it is only natural that they should all receive equal treatment. Therefore, while there may be differences among students in terms of grades and other factors, there should be no discrimination among students regarding the use of university facilities. In this context, those who reserve study rooms are simply students like any other—albeit with slightly more study time—and it is difficult to argue that they possess any special qualifications compared to other students. The absence of special qualifications means they are not entitled to special treatment compared to other students; thus, from the perspective of equality, they are not entitled to reserve study rooms.
So far, we have examined the injustice of reserving seats from three perspectives: purpose, utilitarianism, and equality. Reserving seats cannot be justified from any of these three perspectives, and those who do so must understand that they are not only causing harm to other students but are also engaging in unjust behavior that cannot be justified.

The Ethical Awareness Required of Engineers to Prevent “Private Seating”

I once had a conversation with a student who engaged in “private seating.” He was unaware of exactly what was wrong with his actions and did not realize that they were causing harm to others. After hearing a great deal about “private seating,” he came to realize that his behavior was causing significant harm to others and promised to be careful not to do it anymore. While talking with him, I thought that many people who engage in this practice are likely similar to him. The belief that, while they vaguely know it’s wrong, the impact of their actions isn’t significant—or that “one person like me won’t make much of a difference”—is what drives them to do it. Posters lamenting the current state of society and efforts to clean up the mess have had little effect on them so far. This is because those actions were merely attempts to condemn them and achieve a temporary effect, rather than efforts to make them realize that their behavior was wrong. While an automated system to curb their actions—in order to prevent the endless, annual recurrence of this issue—might be a good solution, isn’t the truly important thing to encourage them, as engineers, to reflect on and learn about ethics—a subject to which we have not paid sufficient attention until now?