A few days ago, I was doomscrolling on Reddit (yes, you heard that right, I’ve stooped that low) and I came across a post talking about people rudely asking for a mobile hotspot in public. The post wasn’t against people asking for a mobile hotspot in a pinch, nor was it against people giving it away. No, the point was that such people are so ungrateful that they don’t deserve to be given that favour. “They don’t even say thank you,” the post said, “and just treat it as if it were their God-given right.”

Now, for some background information, I am basically the poster child of overthinking. So, naturally, I began seriously thinking about what the post said. Like I actually shut off my mobile and sat there at 3 am staring at my ceiling for a few minutes. Only if I could concentrate like that on my studies, but alas, that's not how the human brain works. Why did a stranger's rant about Wi-Fi feel like a personal moral crisis?

I began thinking: helping someone out is a morally good thing, and after doing it, we feel good about it, so why does it matter if the other person isn’t thankful? Are you giving that person a hotspot just so he can be thankful to you? It’s like you have a test at school, and while handing out the question paper, your teacher is pretty rude. What, then? Will you not take the test? 

But I began thinking about it from another perspective. It does really feel bad when you help someone out, and they behave rudely in return. That’s what the creator of that post was getting at. But I think there’s a greater underlying problem. In a way, if we continue to reward (or at least tolerate) this rude behavior and end up succumbing to their requests, then we will be encouraging this rude behavior. That person would think, ‘Oh, if I’m rude, I’ll still get what I want, so there’s no need for being kind and polite.’ 

Then this person will end up on r/AmItheAsshole and be oblivious to why his friends don’t invite him to go out with them. All the while, he would be thinking, “I didn’t even do anything wrong!” 

Then began the onslaught of back and forth between the two conflicting ideas in my head:

“I should help because their lack of thanks is their problem, not mine.”

“But am I helping them in the long term by letting them be a jerk?”

“I can guarantee help in the short term, but I can’t guarantee they’ll learn a lesson just because I say no.”

“But isn't it my responsibility? If someone is dying and I assume someone else will call the ambulance, that doesn’t dissolve my moral obligation.” 

I spent half an hour in this loop. I suspect I might have undiagnosed ADHD (I’m trying to play it off cool, but it’s actually something I think about a lot), and these 3 a.m. "moral gymnastics" are exhausting.

Anyway, you might be wondering what the point of all of it was. I realized that while there is no simple, universal answer, there is a massive benefit to these "moral gymnastics." It forces you to realize that people who differ from your viewpoint are just looking at the problem from a different angle. If you stood where they are, you might have that opinion, too.

However, it also highlights a specific struggle our generation faces: we are constantly bombarded with everyone else’s ethical dilemmas and "main character" behavior online. 

It makes the simple act of deciding whether or not we should offer a hotspot to someone who is rude feel incredibly complex.

So, after half an hour of 3 a.m. mental looping, I didn’t figure out a universal rule for kindness. My sleep-deprived self did reach one conclusion, though: life is complicated, people are complicated. Sometimes, the "right" thing is to say no to rudeness for the sake of a greater change in the future. But other times, we should just help, without expecting applause, or a "thank you," or even free Wi-Fi. Either way, the universal rule of what's right and wrong likely isn't found on a late-night Reddit thread.