Recently, in Xi, Shaanxi, an old lady got on the bus with her child in her arms. The driver, Master Liang, used radio and shouting to remind passengers to give up their seats. The whole car didn't move, so Master Liang simply stopped the car. About 5 minutes later, a middle-aged male passenger stood up and offered his seat to the old man, and Master Liang restarted the car. Afterwards, Master Liang's behavior caused controversy.

In the dispute, most of the discussions are about whether the bus driver has the right to deeply intervene in parking, not about whether to give up his seat. However, some media comments regard giving up your seat as a passenger's contractual obligation. As the performance of the contract is an inevitable obligation in civil legal relations, it is equivalent to becoming a legal obligation of passengers.

The author believes that "the bus driver opens the door at the station, which means making an offer to the passengers, and the passengers have the right to choose whether to establish a transportation contract." As long as the passenger gets on the bus, it means that he has made some kind of commitment. "This commitment includes the obligation of" comity and love ". The angle of comment is relatively novel, combining the relevant theories of civil law and contract law, and the conclusion seems logical. However, this conclusion has very serious problems.

The "contractual obligation" to give a seat to a passenger confuses the concepts of "moral obligation" and "contractual obligation". Moral initiatives should be distinguished from contracts. It is a moral measure to set up love seats on buses in public places to remind people in need to give up their seats. There is no essential difference between giving up your seat on the bus and the moral requirements of citizens in other public places. This norm, known as "public morality", is difficult to adjust at the level of legal norms because of the difficulty of identification and the universality of behavior, and can only be constrained by social initiatives and negative evaluations.

Under certain conditions, morality can indeed be regulated as a part of contractual obligations, such as the employer's requirements for employees' clothes, words and deeds. But here, the relative person of contractual obligations is determined, the unit has a clear definition of which behaviors are prohibited, and the disposal of violations is also clear and specific. It can be seen that the determination of obligations must have clear boundaries, and any obligation that may be vaguely judged cannot become a contractual obligation.

Let's take another look. The "comity" on the bus is the relationship between unspecified people and unspecified people. Assuming that "the obligation to give up your seat" exists, the same passenger may have different rights and obligations in front of different passengers. For example, a 60-year-old man is a right holder in front of a 40-year-old man and enjoys the right to receive a "love seat"; But suddenly an 80-year-old man came over. Should he volunteer? Should I give up my seat? In fact, the concept of "people in need" on the bus is a relative concept, not an absolute concept, which determines that it is impossible to use a unified standard to define who has the right and the obligation to give up their seats.

Another example is "weak" in "old, weak, sick and pregnant". For men, women are "weak"; For adults, minors are weak; For strong people, thin people are weak; For morning exercisers, the guy on the night shift is very weak ... not to mention the "sick" people, it is even more impossible to directly identify them. So, how to determine this right and obligation? How can we identify who is the obligee and who is the obligor at a glance?

The contractual relationship between the bus and the passengers is actually very simple: safely and timely deliver the passengers to the designated place. Morality on the bus is the moral content of public places. The bus company has the obligation to prompt and advocate to a certain extent, but it should not be a moral referee. Bus drivers stop and force passengers to give up their seats. On the surface, it is to safeguard public morality, but in fact it violates more basic morality: professional ethics and professional operation norms. At the same time, it also ignores the contractual obligations between passengers and bus companies.

On the bus, the judgment of whether to give up your seat should be vague and more cordial. Don't look at people who don't give up their seats with self-righteous eyes. Too precise and specific direction will often cause greater harm to morality.