Is it morally permissible to jump the queue? The situation is: Ken wanted to take a mini-bus. When he reached the bus stop, he found that his friend was in the first position of the queue. His friend let him jump the queue. In fact, there were only ten people waiting for the bus. That is, no one missed the next bus because of Ken's jumping the queue. Have Ken and his friend acted wrongly? Is it possible to prove that it's morally permissible?
Just because no-one missed the bus because of Ken jumping the queue doesn't mean it couldn't happen. The bus could've been unexpectedly near-full by the time it arrived, which perhaps could've lead to Ken making it in, while others could be forced to wait for the next bus, despite arriving early at the bus station (at least earlier than Ken).
In fact, when Ken jumps the queue, Ken is doing it precisely because they are aware that a scenario like above could occur and want to maximize the probability of them getting in. Or, they want to maximize their probability of getting a better seat by getting in first, but, again, that too is imoral, since the others in the queue probably have similar wishes, and decided to show up early so they could get their seats. So, my point is, from both a consequentialist viewpoint and a deontological viewpoint, this action is morally suspect.
Ken's friend is of course acting just as amoral, if not more, since the friend puts Ken in an awkward position: do you turn down a friend's offer, or do you do the ethical thing and stand last in line? The argument that they both just want to stand together doesn't hold either: in that case, Ken's friend could just go towards Ken and stand with them last in line.
I'm not a big fan of defining definitions. However to draw line to present a captured concept, maybe I should. a) Morality could only be applied when there are more than oneself present. b) In gross morality defines an act that preserve others interest, or increase others interest.
In such case Ken's jumping the queue can never be morally permissible. If they want to sit together or get on the same bus, why can't his friend jump out of the queue?
His friend let him jump the queue
His friend has violated others' rights, he is just the component of the queue, his sequence relative to other members that doesn't give him possession the position in the queue, therefore he doesn't have the right to insert new member to change the sequential relativity.
But this type of minor hiccups that we act in convenience and amiability are common in the world, that's what made life lively, the beauty of ambiguity, giving chances people to experience their emotions and minds. For example, there could be someone being upset in the queue while some wouldn't bother, some may even go and pull Ken out.
Looks like the UK people are the most ardent flocks in dispelling moral ambiguity :), according to the comment.
You are way too narrow in your focus. "How can we decide if this is moral?" It completely depends on your moral beliefs. How can I answer this for you? Only you know exactly what you believe. What does your moral framework say? If it says to pursue self-interest, then Ken was morally correct. If it says to maximize the well-being of as many people as possible, then he probably did not (because more people would have been well if he had waited than jumping the line as far as we can tell from the information).
TL;DR You are the only one who can answer this question for yourself.
Rights can be transferred. If Ken's friend, who had the right to get on first, relinquished his position to Ken and himself went to the back of the queue, none of the other queuers would be disadvantaged, relatively or absolutely. The friend would merely have transferred his first-position right to Ken. It's unusual but morally unobjectionable.
What would be morally objectionable would be the friend's inviting Ken to take his own position at the front of the queue and himself moving to second place. This reduces the chances of others in the queue getting on the bus, and the friend had no right to do this. (What could support such a right ?) The fact that there was room for all - an optimific result - was a mere contingency.
Appealing to utilitarian consequentialism doesn't help. Act utilitarianism requires us to act on our best assessment of probable consequences, which is all we can do; and there is nothing in the situation as described to justify a probability-belief that everyone would be able to get on the bus.
As for rule utilitarianism, it is hard to imagine conditions in which the practice of altering the relative or absolute advantages of others at will produces an optimific result.
Switching to Kantian deontology, the maxim on which the friend acts - 'Always relatively or absolutely disadvantage others in the interests as a friend' - involves no contradiction in conception. It is logically possible for it to be universalised. But it does involve a contradiction in the will, the second categorical-imperative test : no-one could rationally prefer a world in which everyone followed this maxim. I assume.
Well it always feels unfair to those who didn't know his friend. And imagine the situation had his friend also known 10 others who could join him at the front of the queue. This is not acceptable unless every other person in the queue also offers Ken the position. They have after all been forced to give up their current position without consent or compensation. But it gets tricky, if his friend had prearranged to be early in order to hold the position for both of them. Even then I think it is not acceptable.
You tagged it with "consequentialism." Let's look at consequences.
If Ken and his buddy pulled this on some street in London, UK, the most severe consequence likely is somebody ruffles a newspaper, or harumphs quietly. Maybe somebody's knuckles briefly go white in a suggestive manner. If Ken and his buddy pulled this at the shuttle bus stop where guys leaving the mine after their shift are trying to go home, the consequences are likely to be a bit more drastic.
Now note that in the previous paragraph you didn't boggle at the phrase "pulled this." Either time. What does that imply? You implicitly accept the idea that there is something being pulled. Your instant evaluation of the situation is that Ken and his buddy are out of line. Literally.
Yes, it's immoral. Very mildly so, but still. An appropriate response would be some kind of shaming comment. "If you two really need to be joined at the hip you can do it at the back of the line." It would not be appropriate to apply lessons using mining equipment.