And she called me stupid

[DBT]

Neither a borrower nor lender be.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I would need more info about the situation in which I borrowed the money. How come I did that? Why am I still speaking to her? Is she a close family member? Is there any other reason to talk to her? I can imagine very unrealistic hypothetical scenarios in which I would borrow money from her, but then, the hypotheses in many of the scenarios play a role on whether I give her the $200 back, or $100, or $0, and only $100 a couple of months later.

I think you’re overthinking it when you want to consider how the situation came to be. It doesn’t matter one iota. If you said you were gonna pay it back and no strings were spoken of, then barring unforeseen reasons, neither post hoc rationale nor preagreement circumstances alter your moral obligation to do as you said you would.

No, I think it matters a lot. Previous circumstances do play a role on whether there is a moral obligation in the first place. Not all promises result in obligations (e.g., if someone is pointing a gun at my head, there is no obligation; that might not have been the case here, but then, she might have been taking advantage (knowingly) of a truly dire situation, caused in part by herself, etc.; in short, I need (a lot) more info).

 

[abaddon]

Never lend to those with whom you expect to converse in the future.

This. Or go ahead and lend the money, but be sure you're 100% ok with just letting the debt slide when the disagreements about payback come up.

To me, the name-calling between friends would be the bigger deal than the money. There's no way I'd tolerate it. My friendships have an unbreakable condition on them: it's mutual respect, or BYE.

Ha!

If my mates DIDN'T call me rude names, I would know they weren't real friends.

The stronger the insults, the stronger the friendship. Only your best mate would call you a cunt and not expect a broken nose.

It's an Australian thing. I wouldn't advise trying it until you have been here a LONG time, unless you are very good at either fighting or running.

Oh, and never lend money to a friend unless you are prepared to forget either the debt or the relationship.

I misspoke to make it seem that name-calling was the point, because the point was respect. There's respect or there's no friendship. My friends call each other names, but goofy ones. Never "stupid" because it's never friendly, it's the sort of thing highly abusive parents or spouses, or stupidest of enemies, say. "Cunt" might work because it's a silly word (between men).

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'd pay back the $200 and ding the hell out of their credit rating.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't get the idea that she had $200 available to lend to you or possibly to someone else but she didn't have the $100 available to pay you back. Something's missing from the equation. And it doesn't seem like this all is about what's legally justified. It was a handshake agreement based on personal trust.

I’m not speaking on what may or may not be legal but rather what is or isn’t right.

You mean, what would be the mature option (discuss it before hand) and the passive-aggressive option (pay back the $200 and needlessly stew over it).

 

[fast]

I would need more info about the situation in which I borrowed the money. How come I did that? Why am I still speaking to her? Is she a close family member? Is there any other reason to talk to her? I can imagine very unrealistic hypothetical scenarios in which I would borrow money from her, but then, the hypotheses in many of the scenarios play a role on whether I give her the $200 back, or $100, or $0, and only $100 a couple of months later.

I think you’re overthinking it when you want to consider how the situation came to be. It doesn’t matter one iota. If you said you were gonna pay it back and no strings were spoken of, then barring unforeseen reasons, neither post hoc rationale nor preagreement circumstances alter your moral obligation to do as you said you would.

No, I think it matters a lot. Previous circumstances do play a role on whether there is a moral obligation in the first place. Not all promises result in obligations (e.g., if someone is pointing a gun at my head, there is no obligation; that might not have been the case here, but then, she might have been taking advantage (knowingly) of a truly dire situation, caused in part by herself, etc.; in short, I need (a lot) more info).

I don’t think it matters, and the reason I don’t think it matters is precisely because it’s a hypothetical scenario. If the information wasn’t given, it shouldn’t be assumed, and it shouldn’t be considered. It’s a straight-up, no hidden truths situation, and though in real life I can appreciate that a promise under duress or threat might not allow for the creation of a moral obligation, I don’t see how this hypothetical can be considered so unrealistic. For you or I maybe, but there are people who don’t thoroughly analyze their friendships.

Let’s say a group of people work together, and one is a female who loves the saying “the struggle is real.” There’s a guy she works with; he’s her go-to guy when her struggles surface. She borrows $20 or $40 from him, and like always, she pays him back. They’ve known each other for a decade. They cut up, laugh, and occasionally play. They’ll buy each other lunch once in a while, and although it might be a little whopsided as to who buys more often than not, no one feels taken advantage of. Although she has borrowed as high as $400 in the past, he’s always been paid back. The most he’s ever borrowed was just enough to cover a lunch; either way, in the end, the books are balanced. No one gets stiffed.

A time comes where she gets her taxes back, and though it’s a great opportunity to repay the $100, her reality has some rather pressing struggles; the guy, at the time, just so happens to have an emergency and in need of a couple hundred bucks, and she realizes that because they share their stories. She offers to lend him $200 but expresses the need that she get it all back because of her single mom struggles. Nothing is said or brought up about the unpaid $100 to him; they both know and neither have forgotten.

When it comes time for him to pay, he does not all of a sudden utilize this opportunity to HAVE A DISCUSSION. Despite having gone without the $100 that she’ll get around to paying, he decides to keep his word and honor his agreement—which in the eyes of some is stupid since he has the opportunity to fuck her over by using the most inopportune time to balance the books and reassess whatever lopsidedness may exist in this perhaps less than desirable friendship according to others and their armchair thinking.

If you borrow my rake and don’t immediately return it, I’m still going to return the shovel I borrowed. That’s the right thing to do. Money shouldn’t make things different. If I say I’m going to return the $200 I borrowed, there should be absolutely no room for calculating or discussions. If I want my $100 back, I might bring it up, but the $200 will be returned first, and the topic won’t be had until much later, if ever.

 

[The AntiChris]

Any thoughts?

Given the hypothetical as presented, I think you're right.

 

[Treedbear]

No, I think it matters a lot. Previous circumstances do play a role on whether there is a moral obligation in the first place. Not all promises result in obligations (e.g., if someone is pointing a gun at my head, there is no obligation; that might not have been the case here, but then, she might have been taking advantage (knowingly) of a truly dire situation, caused in part by herself, etc.; in short, I need (a lot) more info).

I don’t think it matters, and the reason I don’t think it matters is precisely because it’s a hypothetical scenario. If the information wasn’t given, it shouldn’t be assumed, and it shouldn’t be considered. It’s a straight-up, no hidden truths situation, and though in real life I can appreciate that a promise under duress or threat might not allow for the creation of a moral obligation, I don’t see how this hypothetical can be considered so unrealistic. For you or I maybe, but there are people who don’t thoroughly analyze their friendships.

I agree with Angra because what's morally right and wrong always depends on circumstances. There is no formula for what's right and wrong.

...
If you borrow my rake and don’t immediately return it, I’m still going to return the shovel I borrowed. That’s the right thing to do. Money shouldn’t make things different. If I say I’m going to return the $200 I borrowed, there should be absolutely no room for calculating or discussions. If I want my $100 back, I might bring it up, but the $200 will be returned first, and the topic won’t be had until much later, if ever.

The world is far from ideal. The fact that they didn't honor their commitment should be reflected in the level of trust you put in them going forward. If the person didn't yet return the rake or the $100 would you trust them enough to lend another tool or more money? If the answer is yes then you're correct to honor your commitment. But eventually you'll say no more and it's time to take people to account.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I don’t think it matters, and the reason I don’t think it matters is precisely because it’s a hypothetical scenario. If the information wasn’t given, it shouldn’t be assumed, and it shouldn’t be considered. It’s a straight-up, no hidden truths situation, and though in real life I can appreciate that a promise under duress or threat might not allow for the creation of a moral obligation, I don’t see how this hypothetical can be considered so unrealistic. For you or I maybe, but there are people who don’t thoroughly analyze their friendships.

When we consider hypothetical scenarios (or real ones, for that matter), what we have is actually an under-determined picture, not a full scenario. Our information is always incomplete. In order to make moral assessments, at least we need to have all of the morally relevant information, or enough so that the margin of error is very small.
In this particular scenario, I do not have anything like that. The scenario remains underdetermined in ways that are morally relevant.

As to how realistic the hypothetical is, I have to say it is for me. There is absolutely no way I would be in one of those situations, barring some extremely improbable events. I would need more information about those events in order to make an assessment.

Let’s say a group of people work together, and one is a female who loves the saying “the struggle is real.” There’s a guy she works with; he’s her go-to guy when her struggles surface. She borrows $20 or $40 from him, and like always, she pays him back. They’ve known each other for a decade. They cut up, laugh, and occasionally play. They’ll buy each other lunch once in a while, and although it might be a little whopsided as to who buys more often than not, no one feels taken advantage of. Although she has borrowed as high as $400 in the past, he’s always been paid back. The most he’s ever borrowed was just enough to cover a lunch; either way, in the end, the books are balanced. No one gets stiffed.

A time comes where she gets her taxes back, and though it’s a great opportunity to repay the $100, her reality has some rather pressing struggles; the guy, at the time, just so happens to have an emergency and in need of a couple hundred bucks, and she realizes that because they share their stories. She offers to lend him $200 but expresses the need that she get it all back because of her single mom struggles. Nothing is said or brought up about the unpaid $100 to him; they both know and neither have forgotten.

That's much better. It's a lot more information. But why is the unpaid debt not even mentioned, even though he has an emergency?
Anyway, given what you're saying, it seems to me that he very probably should pay. To be clear, I'm assessing what he should do, not what I should do. I would not be that person (he is very, very different from me). I'm trying to fill in the gaps as to how their relationship happens, but at least I can do that because of all of the background information you gave now but had not given before. I was not able to make even a "very probable" assessment before.

When it comes time for him to pay, he does not all of a sudden utilize this opportunity to HAVE A DISCUSSION. Despite having gone without the $100 that she’ll get around to paying, he decides to keep his word and honor his agreement—which in the eyes of some is stupid since he has the opportunity to fuck her over by using the most inopportune time to balance the books and reassess whatever lopsidedness may exist in this perhaps less than desirable friendship according to others and their armchair thinking.

Now you have added a lot more information about those people, so at least I can make a "very probable" assessment.

If you borrow my rake and don’t immediately return it, I’m still going to return the shovel I borrowed. That’s the right thing to do. Money shouldn’t make things different. If I say I’m going to return the $200 I borrowed, there should be absolutely no room for calculating or discussions. If I want my $100 back, I might bring it up, but the $200 will be returned first, and the topic won’t be had until much later, if ever.

No, that depends on the situation.

 

[fast]

The world is far from ideal. The fact that they didn't honor their commitment should be reflected in the level of trust you put in them going forward.

That makes sense. If I loan money and don’t get it back, that should be a red flag should I decide to lend again. But remember, this scenario is flipped around. For simplicities sake, let’s say the original agreement is between a man and a woman where the woman is the borrower. The second agreement is the other way around where the man is the borrower. What you’re saying is good advice should the man be contemplating being the lender.

If the person didn't yet return the rake or the $100 would you trust them enough to lend another tool or more money?

Again, this is flipped. Let’s say I borrow the rake from you. You are the lender, and you ask that I have it back to you by the weekend because you’ll be needing it. I, as the borrower, agree to have it back to you by the weekend.

Weekend comes and guess what, I have not done as I said I would. Hell, two months later, I still have it. I know it; you know it;

You are now in need of a shovel, and this time, you take on the role, not as a repeat lender, but instead this time, you’re the borrower. I explain to you that i’ll need it back by the weekend because I’ll be needing it.

Yes, you could have rubbed it in my face that I never returned the rake, but you don’t. If there was ever a time to start holding me to account, it should have been BEFORE any agreement on YOUR part.

Now, the weekend has come. What are you going to do? Are you going to walk over, shovel in hand, and say, we need to talk? Are you going to start jogging my memory? Withhold the shovel? You may decide that I’m a piece of shit for not returning the rake and swear to never lend to me again, but as a borrower, who has given your word, you should do exactly what it is you said you would and return the shovel, regardless of the circumstances with the rake.

As a lender, your part was done after lending the rake. As a borrower, your part isn’t done until after returning the shovel. You can decide to do what’s right in light of any wrongs others have committed.

It’s the same with money. You lent me $100. After having gone unpaid, you borrowed $200 from me. My wrong doesn’t dissolve your obligation. If you hand me $100 and say we’re even, it may feel right, but it isn’t. You are obligated to repay the $200, and if you don’t, what you’re doing is wrong. Smart, maybe, but that’s the other issue that’s not really being touched on.

 

[Treedbear]

...
As a lender, your part was done after lending the rake. As a borrower, your part isn’t done until after returning the shovel. You can decide to do what’s right in light of any wrongs others have committed.
...

By willfully not returning your rake or money they have established (per Kantian categorical imperative) that they don't believe either of you have the moral obligation to return the other's property at the agreed upon time. If you don't see that then you have no reason to stop lending things to them. That would be immoral.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Again, this is flipped. Let’s say I borrow the rake from you. You are the lender, and you ask that I have it back to you by the weekend because you’ll be needing it. I, as the borrower, agree to have it back to you by the weekend.

Weekend comes and guess what, I have not done as I said I would. Hell, two months later, I still have it. I know it; you know it;

But why do you think Treedbear would not say anything?

You are now in need of a shovel, and this time, you take on the role, not as a repeat lender, but instead this time, you’re the borrower. I explain to you that i’ll need it back by the weekend because I’ll be needing it.

There is no way I would borrow the shovel from you, except extremely improbable situations. Maybe Treedbear would, but not without telling you first something like "I would need my rake back, and I want to borrow your shovel". Who knows? The behavior is very weird without some very unusual circumstances.

Yes, you could have rubbed it in my face that I never returned the rake, but you don’t. If there was ever a time to start holding me to account, it should have been BEFORE any agreement on YOUR part.

But why did Treedbear not do that?
And yes, it matters why. If there was some sort of duress, the situation changes. And it's very unusual to do that. And it's even more unusual with money.

It’s the same with money.

It's not the same with money. Money is fungible. That makes the situation even weirder, as far as I can tell. But of course, as long as you give more details, you can settle it in the direction you want.

 

[fast]

When we consider hypothetical scenarios (or real ones, for that matter), what we have is actually an under-determined picture, not a full scenario. Our information is always incomplete. In order to make moral assessments, at least we need to have all of the morally relevant information, or enough so that the margin of error is very small.

I need to think about that some more.

But why is the unpaid debt not even mentioned, even though he has an emergency?

You really think that’s important, don’t you!

I’m trying to think of scenarios that would alter your train of thought. Unless the actual first agreement matters, any scenario I conjure should make the promise an obligation. So, things like duress, threat, or extreme circumstances are not apart of this.

How about, the importance of the emergency stands alone. If all the borrower needs is the problem solved or the money to solve the problem, that it partially comes from unpaid debt seems (at least to me) to have no bearing on doing what is said will be done.

How about fear? If it’s important, being especially tactful might be in order to reduce the risk of being paid back with no immediate solution to the problem. For example, “hey, I have this problem, and I need $200 to solve it. Could you pay me back and lend me a $100?” ... followed by the original borrower getting ticked off for my bringing it up and either A) repaying the debt and leaving me to retain my problem or B) I don’t have it right now.

If I choose not to bring it up out of fear and make the promise to pay it back, am I in the clear when I later say, I lied?

 

[fast]

Fungible?

I’m not saying there is not a difference between a rake and money. What is the same is the obligation to pay back what was promised, be it a rake or money.

You seem to be quite cognizant of the idea that there are always exceptions and thus it’s risky to say there is an obligation when there could be exclusionary reasons for why in this particular instance there is no obligation. It’s like asking if killing is wrong. Well yes, generally, killing is wrong. It not being wrong is an exception. For instance, an officer killing to save the life of another.

I don’t want you to flat out assume it’s obligatory in my scenario to keep a promise, as I do leave room for an exception, but unless you can tie the first agreement in as morally relevant, the next issue isn’t whether paying back what is owed is morally obligatory but colloquially stupid.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

You really think that’s important, don’t you!

That might depend on the reason it was not mentioned. The way you put it, it seems he will have an obligation anyway - probably. But I'm asking why because of how unusual their behavior looks to me. I would want to understand why she behaves like that, and why he tolerates that sort of behavior.

I’m trying to think of scenarios that would alter your train of thought. Unless the actual first agreement matters, any scenario I conjure should make the promise an obligation. So, things like duress, threat, or extreme circumstances are not apart of this.

I'm not sure I follow. But the way she is treating him matters. Duress might be coming from her. The very unusual behavior raises red flags for me.

How about, the importance of the emergency stands alone. If all the borrower needs is the problem solved or the money to solve the problem, that it partially comes from unpaid debt seems (at least to me) to have no bearing on doing what is said will be done.

But the reason he might not mention it may well be her immoral behavior, if there is a pattern. Maybe she never returns any money when a creditor asks for the money back. Maybe he knows that, and she knows he knows. Maybe he is in dire need of money, in a life or death situation, and she knows it.

How about fear? If it’s important, being especially tactful might be in order to reduce the risk of being paid back with no immediate solution to the problem. For example, “hey, I have this problem, and I need $200 to solve it. Could you pay me back and lend me a $100?” ... followed by the original borrower getting ticked off for my bringing it up and either A) repaying the debt and leaving me to retain my problem or B) I don’t have it right now.

If I choose not to bring it up out of fear and make the promise to pay it back, am I in the clear when I later say, I lied?

Suppose she never returns any money when asked. They both know it. Suppose further that a criminal threatens to kill him within 24 hours for failing to pay "protection" - which she knows. He fears for his life, and she has not given the money back. Suppose another person has asked her for the money back. Because she was asked, she refused (she always refuses when asked, but the other person did not know it), even though she has more than enough money. The other person was unable to get any money for "protection", and got murdered. Does the second lender have an obligation to give the $200 back within a week, even if he needs the $100 for something else (like, buying a ticket to run from that place?).

Again, this is all very improbable. Your scenario looks like he very probably has an obligation. But their behavior looks unusual to me as well, so I wanted more information.

If I choose ot to bring it up out of fear and make the promise to pay it back, am I in the clear when I later say, I lied?

I think he's probably (given that information) in the clear when he uses the money to get out of there, and later sends her the money (the $100). Of course, this is different because of the duress, etc., but my point is that that sort of thing is relevant, and I was asking why their behavior had been as it was because it seems difficult for me to relate. But for others, it may well be common, so it depends on their relation. In the situation you described, I agree that very probably he should pay back.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Fungible?

I’m not saying there is not a difference between a rake and money. What is the same is the obligation to pay back what was promised, be it a rake or money.

I know you did not say that. In the case of a rake, what is promised it to give back that particular rake. With money, it's a certain amount, not the specific object. It makes the compensation much more natural, and the behavior weirder.

You seem to be quite cognizant of the idea that there are always exceptions and thus it’s risky to say there is an obligation when there could be exclusionary reasons for why in this particular instance there is no obligation. It’s like asking if killing is wrong. Well yes, generally, killing is wrong. It not being wrong is an exception. For instance, an officer killing to save the life of another.

Yes, it generally is wrong. But when you assume an extremely unusual scenario, then it's more difficult to say "it was wrong" without further info.

I don’t want you to flat out assume it’s obligatory in my scenario to keep a promise, as I do leave room for an exception, but unless you can tie the first agreement in as morally relevant, the next issue isn’t whether paying back what is owed is morally obligatory but colloquially stupid.

The same agreement is relevant in the sense it makes the second unusual, so it makes it more difficult to make an assessment as to whether paying back is obligatory.

But still, if you want me to tie them, how about this:
[after a week]
She: I want my $200 back, as you promised.
He: Give me a minute, and I will transfer them to you. I also want my $100 back, as you promised months ago.
She: I choose not live up to my promise. I choose to break my obligation to you, and choose not give you the $100 back. Maybe I will change my mind some day. Now, transfer the $200 back to me.

Should he give her the $200 back?

Of course, it may well be - given the way you describe the scenario -, that they implicitly agreed to cancel the other obligation, or leave it unpaid indefinitely until she has more money. I actually believe that the way you describe the scenario, he very probably should pay. But is it because the original obligation does not matter at all? Or is it because it's been implicitly agreed to leave it aside, at least for the foreseeable future if not for good?

Then again, maybe in cases like the ones you described, usually there is an implicit clause to put the previous obligation aside (canceling it or extending the term indefinitely), and I just hadn't considered because of the difficulty I have relating to that situation.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

fast,

How about this?
[a week later]

He: I'll give you your $200 back. But I also want my $100 back.
She: No. I choose to break my promise. Now, keep yours, and give me the $200 back.

Should he pay?
I think it is not the case he should.

But the following might work (depending on circumstances):


He: I'll give you your $200 back. But I also want my $100 back.
She: No. You promised to give the $200 back within a week, and said nothing of the $100. Implicitly, you agreed to cancel that debt, or at least give me time until I chose to pay. But I want the $200 now, as agreed.

I think that he should very probably pay. So, yes, that works. It's not that the original obligation doesn't matter, but rather, there's an implicit change to it in most such cases - well, perhaps. I'm not familiar enough with such cases to be sure.

 

[fast]

fast,

How about this?
[a week later]

He: I'll give you your $200 back. But I also want my $100 back.
She: No. I choose to break my promise. Now, keep yours, and give me the $200 back.

Should he pay?
I think it is not the case he should.

I say he should.

First (and unrelated), there is no implicit anything about debt forgiveness somehow implicitly being a function of not rehashing an agreement already made.

Second, we each have our own moral compass, and the idea I’m expounding on is that I should not wrong you just because you have wronged me.

It’s unfortunate that my scenario is so unusual to you, and I admit it seems to have an air of unfairness about it, but excluding all those unspoken things like duress and threats that disallow a promise to be an obligation, I say a person should (morally speaking) stand tall to do the right thing despite the wrongs others might have committed.

Unless you have more than an excuse but in fact a damned good reason not to, you should keep your word, even in peculiar situations that you cannot relate to or ordinarily get yourself into but did. If I tell you that I’m going to repay you, I don’t give a damn what others might do. I don’t even care what you might do if the situation is reversed. I don’t care if I come out on the losing end, but the one thing you can bank on is that the $200 would be repaid by the time I said it would.

Either
A) I have the moral obligation to do what I think I have the moral obligation to do—and I’m a dumb ass
B) I don’t have the moral obligation to do what I think I have the moral obligation to do—and I’m still a dumb ass

C) I have the moral obligation to do what I think I have the moral obligation to do—and I’m not a dumb ass
D) I don’t have the moral obligation to do what I think I have the moral obligation to do—and I’m still not a dumb ass

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I say he should.

I admit that that is not the answer I was expecting. I do not think there is much room for agreement on this.

First (and unrelated), there is no implicit anything about debt forgiveness somehow implicitly being a function of not rehashing an agreement already made.

I think there are a lot of implicit agreements involved in a long-term relationship, and either forgiving the debt or allowing it to be paid with no term might be the most frequent case in the sort of scenario you have in mind. I admit this is tentative, since I'm not familiar with that sort of situation. But if there is such an implicit agreement, then he should (usually) pay, though not in the case in which she says she chooses to break her agreement.

Second, we each have our own moral compass, and the idea I’m expounding on is that I should not wrong you just because you have wronged me.

I actually agree with that of course. It is even tautological that you should not wrong anyone (in the moral sense of "should"). Our disagreement is about whether not paying in some situations would be wrong. But I'm willing to accept you may well be correct in most cases, even if not for the right reasons but for an implicit change in the agreement.

It’s unfortunate that my scenario is so unusual to you, and I admit it seems to have an air of unfairness about it, but excluding all those unspoken things like duress and threats that disallow a promise to be an obligation, I say a person should (morally speaking) stand tall to do the right thing despite the wrongs others might have committed.

Of course, if "do the right thing" means 'do what is morally obligatory', it is tautological that he should do it, in the moral sense of 'should'. Our disagreement is this:

He: I'll give you your $200 back. But I also want my $100 back.
She: No. I choose to break my promise. Now, keep yours, and give me the $200 back.
​

I think he has no moral obligation to pay $200 (probably!; it also depends on the circumstances).

 

[fast]

He: I'll give you your $200 back. But I also want my $100 back.
She: No. I choose to break my promise. Now, keep yours, and give me the $200 back.
[/indent]
I think he has no moral obligation to pay $200 (probably!; it also depends on the circumstances).

When I said “tie them together”, I didn’t mean commingle them; keep in mind there are two agreements. What I don’t see (and no implicit jive allowed) is how her failure to honor agreement #1 influences his moral obligation to honor his part of agreement #2.


Jan1:
Her: if you do A, I’ll do B. (If you lend me $100, i’ll pay you back next Friday)
Him: make sure you pay it back next Friday
Her: will do
Him: here ya go (he hands her $100)


Jan8:
Her: (crickets) she doesn’t bring it up
Him: (crickets) neither does he

Feb 1:
Her: I haven’t forgot about the money I owe ya
Him: I’m glad, but neither forgetfullness nor the greatest of memory pays the bills.
Her: hey, did you see that new movie on Netflix?
Him: yeah, it was awesome
Her: I liked the part where ...

Feb 15:
Her: I had the money to pay ya back but I bought these earrings, but i will pay ya, I promise
Him: if ya don’t, i’ll kill your cat and feed it to atheists
Her: that’s mean. So, are they pretty (pointing to earings)?
Him: they’re so cute!! Pay me back soon, please.
Her: okay, will do

Mar 1:
Him: OMG, my alternator is busted and I need $200 bad
Her: hey, I just got my taxes back, but it’s all been allocated out, but I tell ya what, I can lend you $200 to fix the old contraption, but I just gotta have it all back by Friday.
Him: thank you, you can count on me
Her: I know I can

Mar 7:
Her: remember the January 1 agreement?
Him: yes, it’s where I loaned you $100 and you never paid me back.
Her: about that; I have no intentions of paying you back
Him: why? Because I slept with your sister? That’s not a good reason not to pay me what you owe me.

Mar8:
Your advice: balance the books while you can; you tell him to take it upon hisself to square up by repaying the net difference ($100) between the two agreements.

My advice (while wearing the ‘morality rules’ hat): treat each agreement as separate. You need to fulfill your part of your agreements irrespective of being shiested. If you lose $100, it’ll be because she wouldn’t live up to her word, not because you didn’t live up to yours.