fast
Contributor
I overheard a conversation she was having, and in light of it decided to pose a hypothetical scenario question. We’ve known each other a long time, and we speak our minds, so trust me when I say calling me stupid was mild. Although I’ve been called a whole lot worse by her over the years, truth is, we’ve become friends and there’s just no telling what we might say. At any rate, my hypothetical was meant to simplify and parallel the jist of something she said in the conversation I heard. I’ll now pose it to you all.
Let’s say someone comes to you to borrow $100 — with the agreement that it will be paid back next Friday. You lend it to her. Next Friday comes, but you are not paid back. So, this someone still owes you $100.
Fast forward a couple months later. The person still hasn’t paid nor has forgotten, but you need to borrow $200 —with the agreement that it will be paid back next Friday. She lends it to you.
When Friday comes,
do you A) pay back a hundred dollars (of the $200) thereby balancing the books such that no one owes either any money, or
do you B) pay back the entire two hundred dollars, with that person still owing you $100?
She said “A”
She said, “what, you’d pay [$200]?”
I said yes and she called me stupid.
She said her not being paid back is partly why she’s in the mess now—would of only had to borrow $100.
My reasoning is that two wrongs don’t make it right; they’re independent agreements. A person not honoring her agreement doesn’t justify me breaking mine.
I told a couple others what had happened. Both said they’d only pay back $100. One also thought I was stupid. One understood where I was coming from. She tried to explain that people that lend shouldn’t expect it back. I said, as the borrower, I can still decide to keep my word and honor my agreement regardless of the choices others make. If she wants to turn around and pay me back the $100 she owes, that’s her choice.
On moral grounds, I think I have the upper hand, but on stupidity grounds, that’s still up in the air. If this were a legal transaction with extra zeros and there was a caveat for me to take an “A” type position, morality be damned, I wouldn’t be stupid, but with little money, I don’t see the advantage of doing what’s wrong—even if the person you’re doing it to would actually understand and accept it.
I think some may hold that it wouldn’t be wrong to pay back only the $100, but for those that think it is actually wrong but also thinks it’s stupid, if they are right, it would be stupid to do what’s right.
Any thoughts?
Let’s say someone comes to you to borrow $100 — with the agreement that it will be paid back next Friday. You lend it to her. Next Friday comes, but you are not paid back. So, this someone still owes you $100.
Fast forward a couple months later. The person still hasn’t paid nor has forgotten, but you need to borrow $200 —with the agreement that it will be paid back next Friday. She lends it to you.
When Friday comes,
do you A) pay back a hundred dollars (of the $200) thereby balancing the books such that no one owes either any money, or
do you B) pay back the entire two hundred dollars, with that person still owing you $100?
She said “A”
She said, “what, you’d pay [$200]?”
I said yes and she called me stupid.
She said her not being paid back is partly why she’s in the mess now—would of only had to borrow $100.
My reasoning is that two wrongs don’t make it right; they’re independent agreements. A person not honoring her agreement doesn’t justify me breaking mine.
I told a couple others what had happened. Both said they’d only pay back $100. One also thought I was stupid. One understood where I was coming from. She tried to explain that people that lend shouldn’t expect it back. I said, as the borrower, I can still decide to keep my word and honor my agreement regardless of the choices others make. If she wants to turn around and pay me back the $100 she owes, that’s her choice.
On moral grounds, I think I have the upper hand, but on stupidity grounds, that’s still up in the air. If this were a legal transaction with extra zeros and there was a caveat for me to take an “A” type position, morality be damned, I wouldn’t be stupid, but with little money, I don’t see the advantage of doing what’s wrong—even if the person you’re doing it to would actually understand and accept it.
I think some may hold that it wouldn’t be wrong to pay back only the $100, but for those that think it is actually wrong but also thinks it’s stupid, if they are right, it would be stupid to do what’s right.
Any thoughts?
Last edited:
