Most people likely believe that, at least in developed countries, there is fairly equal opportunity for everyone to participate in society to the fullest. Each of these articles offers a different view on that idea, suggesting instead that there are still groups of people that do not have “access” to certain things that most people take for granted. And oftentimes these groups of people are not even considered by the general public, such as fat people, disabled people, or low-income people. The idea of “access” in these cases is essentially the ability for all people to be able to use basic things or live their daily lives in a way that one would consider “normal.”

For disabled people, the solutions to having better access in public areas exist, whether it be elevators, walkways, hearing aids, etc., but the issue lies in the regulation of these technologies. The proposed solution to this is to impose stricter regulations on businesses and organizations to have accommodations for disabled people. For low-income people who struggle to use technology because of limited access to it, the proposed solution is to target young students in low-income areas within their schools. This allows children to learn technical skills from a young age without necessarily having those devices at home, and hopefully those kids will use those skills and be at the same pace at kids who had a wider access at home. Roxane Gay didn’t necessarily propose a solution but it was implied that seats in public areas like movie theaters and air planes could be made larger in order to accommodate differently sized people. It was also jokingly implied that people should stop offering advice and opinions in terms of nutrition and exercise.

I don’t really think there needs to be a line drawn somewhere in terms of making accommodations for people. Everyone should be able to enjoy things to more or less the same degree. A larger person or a disabled person should be able to enjoy a trip to the movie theater just as much as an able-bodied thin person. That particular example is not even difficult at all to resolve; the movie theater in my hometown recently switched all their seats to large, comfortable reclining chairs and it has been an improvement for everyone. Making accommodations almost never hurts anyone and while it might be considered costly, I’m fairly certain that in the long run it would reap rewards as more people are able to access whatever has been modified, and quite possibly, even people who had used it before could enjoy it more.

I think it is unethical to not have accommodations in public spaces, especially basic things like handicapped walkways, elevators, seating, etc. It’s once again, like the devices discussed last time, a case of exclusion. If specific groups of people are not able to enjoy a public service, then the service is discriminating against them, and generally as a society, we consider discrimination to be unethical.