fast said:
There is no coercion or anything funky going on except that there is a completely and totally separate prior agreement that wasn’t lived up to. Had that original agreement not occurred, I suspect you would have no qualms agreeing that he owes the $200 to her.
You mean, in the scenario I described in
this post?
Of course. The whole scenario revolves around the previous agreement. Had there been no previous agreement, she would not be saying she will not honor the previous agreement, so of course I think he should pay her.
fast said:
Even after we go ‘round the mulberry bush and weed out threats, dire circumstances and her favorite ice cream flavor, the very fact alone that he borrowed the money and gave his word to pay it back would suffice for thinking he in fact has a moral obligation to pay it back.
It's one of the scenarios meant to show that this is not so, by appeal to immediate intuition. If you do not see that as immediately clear, the scenario has not worked as intended - which we already know.
On the other hand, if you are talking about other scenarios we have discussed, I'd like to ask which one(s)?
fast said:
Since there is no coercion, duress, threats, disadvantages, incompacities or anything remotely similar going on and just that first agreement (coupled with the idea that maybe he doesn’t have an obligation) goes to show that why you think he has no moral obligation to pay stems not from coercion or the like but rather the first agreement.
No. At first, I was considering that, given the oddity of the situation, maybe something was amiss. But later, in
this post, I replied to a previous post of yours in which you 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.", and said that if you wanted me to tie them, I would do so - and provided a scenario tying them.
The point is that the previous agreement is one among several reasons to be considered. On its own, it does not block the obligation to pay back, as I think that - for example - in such circumstances, there often is an implicit agreement to give her more time.
fast said:
That would be called playing tit for tat if you thought it was wrong to not pay and chose not to anyway. I don’t know what to call it when you don’t even think it’s wrong. Why you don’t see it as wrong is what’s troubling me. He wasn’t coerced. He wasn’t threatened. He didn’t stipulate that getting his hundred back was part of the bargain. He did borrow the money. He did say he’d pay it back. He grasps that she needs it. He understood that when he borrowed it. All you have to fall back on is some distant (two months even) and unrelated (one has NOTHING to do with the other) agreement and some sorted details surrounding how the promises ever came to be made in the first place.
No, she does
not need it at all. Recall
the scenario I'm considering. She's even telling her she does not need it. What you say "some distant (two months even) and unrelated (one has NOTHING to do with the other) agreement", well, I do not think it's unrelated, but it is distant, in the following sense: personal relationships between people involve implicit agreements and obligations as to how to behave. The fact that he agreed later suggests that he is either condoning the previous debt, or giving her time, implicitly - though one would need more info about the specifics of their relationship to be certain.
Now, when she explicitly says she will not pay because she prefers to keep the money, it seems obvious to me he has no obligation to pay $200. I regret it's troubling to you that I do not see it as wrong. It is troubling to me that you find troubling that I do not see it as wrong. The scenario was meant to be a
reductio, so it was meant for you to immediately and intuitively reckon he had no obligation. Obviously, it did not work. How about the following one:
S2: Joe is a plumber and rents a room from Jack. Jack asks Joe to fix the sink on Monday, and tells him he'll pay him $200 the next day, because he does not have cash at hand (say it happened a few decades ago if you like). Joe agrees, and fixes the sink. On Tuesday, Joe is due to pay $300 as rent. Jack asks him to pay.
Joe: I owe you $300 for the rent, but you owe me $200 for the sink, so I pay you $100 and we are even, alright?
Jack: No. I have decided not to pay you for the sink. But you have a moral obligation to pay me $300 for the room.
Joe: But you promised to pay, and I did the job properly. You have a moral obligation to pay me.
Jack: Yes, I have a moral obligation to pay you $200. I choose not to comply with my moral obligation, so that I get an extra $200. Now, will you also behave immorally by failing to pay me $300?
Joe: I only owe you $100. I will pay that, and then leave your room. And I'm not doing anything immoral.
Let's swap roles, so that the person with the earlier obligation fails to comply: .
S3: Joe is a plumber and rents a room from Jack. Jack asks Joe to fix the sink on Monday, and tells him he'll pay him $200 the next day, because he does not have cash at hand (say it happened a few decades ago if you like). Joe agrees, and fixes the sink. On Tuesday, Joe is due to pay $300 as rent. Jack asks him to pay.
Jack: I owe you $200 for the sink, but you owe me $300 for the rent. Will you pay me $100, and we are even?
Joe: No. I have decided not to the rent. But you have a moral obligation to pay me $200 for the sink.
Jack: But you promised to pay the rent, and I did give you the room. You have a moral obligation to pay me.
Joe: Yes, I have a moral obligation to pay you $300 for the room. I choose not to comply with my moral obligation, so that I get an extra $300. Now, will you also behave immorally by failing to pay me $200?
Jack: I owe you nothing. You owe me $100.
Barring legal obligations (that's another matter; there might be a legal obligation that creates a moral obligation), it seems clear to me that Jack has no moral obligation to pay. Do you think he does?