DBT
Contributor
Neither a borrower nor lender be.
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.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 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).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.Never lend to those with whom you expect to converse in the future.
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.
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).I’m not speaking on what may or may not be legal but rather what is or isn’t right.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 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.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.
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).
Given the hypothetical as presented, I think you're right.Any thoughts?
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.
...
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.
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.fast said: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.
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?fast said: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.
Now you have added a lot more information about those people, so at least I can make a "very probable" assessment.fast said: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.
No, that depends on the situation.fast said: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.
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.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?
...
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.
...
But why do you think Treedbear would not say anything?fast said: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;
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.fast said: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.
But why did Treedbear not do that?fast said: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.
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 said:It’s the same with money.
I need to think about that some more.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.
You really think that’s important, don’t you!But why is the unpaid debt not even mentioned, even though he has an emergency?
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.fast said:You really think that’s important, don’t you!
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.fast said: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.
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.fast said: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.
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?).fast said: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?
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.fast said: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 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.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.
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.fast said: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.
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.fast said: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.
I say he should.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 admit that that is not the answer I was expecting. I do not think there is much room for agreement on this.fast said:I say he should.
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.fast said:First (and unrelated), there is no implicit anything about debt forgiveness somehow implicitly being a function of not rehashing an agreement already made.
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.fast said: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.
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:fast said: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.
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).