From an ethical perspective those questions are equal because they're the same but from different perspectives.
I'd say that it entirely depends on you/the individual evaluating whether appeasing is worth it. Either for being a good person or for a separate goal.
I'll edit an example where this evaluation went terribly wrong.
A woman went to see a happiness coach hold a little motivational speech/mass seminar.
He went on saying that if you don't like what you're doing but insist on doing it, consciously or subconsciously, you end up doing more harm than good.
The woman goes on thinking about that and after he finished his speech she goes on and asks him:
I cook every day and I hate it. But somebody has to do it and nobody else will so I do it. But I hate it. Do you really think I should stop? Who will cook then? Nobody can.
The coach replies:
You most certainly can stop and I must say you should do so immediately if it makes you unhappy.
Again the woman:
I think this will be very disruptive and nobody will like it but I will stop. From today on I won't cook anymore.
And so she went her ways.
A few weeks later the woman approaches the coach after another of his talks and says:
You told me to stop cooking for my family because I hate it, even though nobody else could.
And it's perfect! I can't remember being so happy on forever. Thank you, thank you, thank you! With all my heart.
The coach remembers and tells her that he is happy to provide useful advice and he was convinced that it was the right thing to do.
They part ways again.
Shortly after he is approached by two young men who identify themselves as her children and tell him:
One day our mother came home and said that she doesn't want to cook anymore because she hated it. All along, all these years. And that she'll stop immediately.
She told us that you gave her the advice to do so.
And we want to thank you from all our hearts. Family life had improved a lot.
Usually she would complain every dinner that she had to cook and nobody else would. This completely stopped and we get along much better.
Thank you ever so much.
They too part ways.
I'm sure the original story has variations but this is from memory so bear with me
Anyway, moral of the story is that you shouldn't force yourself to do things that you dislike because you think you should.
How does that apply to your conundrum you ask?
If you need/want to do something and are forced to suppress the need for it, it ultimately ends up in you being unhappy. If you cannot come to a conclusion by yourself, whether you weigh your activity heavier than the other person's needs is up to you in the first instance.
As long as it is in the bounds of law it is entirely up to you.
If you desire a good relation to said person, you communicate your need and hopefully arrange something.
If that fails it is back to your evaluation, whether to continue our not, again.
The same applies to the second question whether to implore someone to stop doing something is first on you to decide whether it's needed, then to communicate and possibly reach an agreement where both sides get what they deem reasonable or then again act to stop the person, if applicable, or evade the annoying situation.
Everything changes with your relationship to the person.
Be it a stranger, neighbor, partner, friend, family member.
EPT
