And she called me stupid

[Angra Mainyu]

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.

Not my advice. I said it depends on the situation. In this case, she's not paying him back because he had sex with her sister. That may well be a good reason. It depends on the circumsstances! (Were the two in a committed relationship? Is the sister too young? etc.).
But now consider:

Mar 7:
He: I'm going to pay you your $200 back. But I also want my $100 back. When are you going to pay me?
She: I'm not going to. But I need the $200 back, and you agreed on March 1 to give them back, knowing that I needed them.
He: Yes, alright, I'm paying you back. I agreed to pay you back, and in doing so, I implicitly gave you more time for the $100. But I just wanted to know, because you agreed to pay me back the $100 long ago. I get that you do not have them now. That is why I agreed to pay you back on March 7 (Friday), since you need them for some reason.
She: No, I mean, I'm not paying you back at all. It's not that I really need the $100. I only need $100. But you agreed to pay $200, so you have an obligation to pay $200.
He: But if you can pay $100, you have an obligation to pay $100 as well.
She: Sure, but I will not pay you.
He: Why?
She: Because I do not want to. I prefer to keep the $100.
He: So, okay, you will pay me later, because I implicitly gave you more time?
She: No, I will never pay you.
He: But you promised.
She: Yes, but I choose to break my promise, so that I keep $100. Think what you want, but you have an obligation to pay me $200.
​

My advice to him: You do not have an obligation to pay more than $100, at least on the basis of what I know about your situation.

As usual, it depends on the case!

 

[fast]

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.

Not my advice. I said it depends on the situation. In this case, she's not paying him back because he had sex with her sister. That may well be a good reason. It depends on the circumsstances! (Were the two in a committed relationship? Is the sister too young? etc.).
But now consider:

Mar 7:
He: I'm going to pay you your $200 back. But I also want my $100 back. When are you going to pay me?
She: I'm not going to. But I need the $200 back, and you agreed on March 1 to give them back, knowing that I needed them.
He: Yes, alright, I'm paying you back. I agreed to pay you back, and in doing so, I implicitly gave you more time for the $100. But I just wanted to know, because you agreed to pay me back the $100 long ago. I get that you do not have them now. That is why I agreed to pay you back on March 7 (Friday), since you need them for some reason.
She: No, I mean, I'm not paying you back at all. It's not that I really need the $100. I only need $100. But you agreed to pay $200, so you have an obligation to pay $200.
He: But if you can pay $100, you have an obligation to pay $100 as well.
She: Sure, but I will not pay you.
He: Why?
She: Because I do not want to. I prefer to keep the $100.
He: So, okay, you will pay me later, because I implicitly gave you more time?
She: No, I will never pay you.
He: But you promised.
She: Yes, but I choose to break my promise, so that I keep $100. Think what you want, but you have an obligation to pay me $200.
​

My advice to him: You do not have an obligation to pay more than $100, at least on the basis of what I know about your situation.

As usual, it depends on the case!

He didn’t GIVE her more time. The time came (and then went). She can NEVER follow through like she said she would. The best she can do is pay him back (or that, some interest and a hug), but the deadline has come and gone! Saying he gave her added time is pleasant to the ear; it has a nice ring to it, but her chance at fully living up to her word is buried in the past.

There is something [he] said that has greatly captured my attention: I find it mightily deceitful and underhanded that he would say, “that is why I agreed to pay [her] back.” I expect parties to be bound by what is explicitly said. It’s mighty convenient that when he stands to lose, that WHY he supposedly agreed, all of a sudden matters. If it mattered so much, maybe it should have been spelt out. I call these two separate agreements independent for a reason. One has nothing to do with the other.

If I agree to pay contingent upon (oh say) services being rendered and services aren’t rendered, then I didn’t make a pure non contingent promise. The scenario calls for being taken as is, where what is specifically and explicitly said is what is being held for everyone to account.

Now, all of a sudden, fuzzy words like “tacit” and “implicit” are sprouting about. Reminds me of threads on tipping. No one said anything about what might have been in the back of their minds. This is the doorway to justifying immoral behavior. No one cares nor should care about what was residing in the dark recesses of his mind. If it’s not apart of the program with zeros and ones, a computer is not going to consider it. Since his expectation is at best a product of self-produced thought, maybe there is less to analyze than we might prefer.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

He didn’t GIVE her more time. The time came (and then went). She can NEVER follow through like she said she would. The best she can do is pay him back (or that, some interest and a hug), but the deadline has come and gone! Saying he gave her added time is pleasant to the ear; it has a nice ring to it, but her chance at fully living up to her word is buried in the past.

Those are two different things. She already broke her promise in the past. That happened already, and that would be the case regardless of whether he later gave her more time, whether explicitly or implicitly.
As to whether he implicitly gave her more time, again, that depends on the specifics of their relationship, but after thinking more about the matter, I'm thinking that, in such odd cases, that usually happens, so I am actually conceding that you are correct that he (probably) should pay back without demanding the $100 first.

There is something [he] said that has greatly captured my attention: I find it mightily deceitful and underhanded that he would say, “that is why I agreed to pay [her] back.” I expect parties to be bound by what is explicitly said. It’s mighty convenient that when he stands to lose, that WHY he supposedly agreed, all of a sudden matters. If it mattered so much, maybe it should have been spelt out. I call these two separate agreements independent for a reason. One has nothing to do with the other.

That is not deceitful. I was thinking of a reason for him to agree to pay her back. It's not that his reasons for agreeing were a condition stipulated to pay her back, but that explains the unusual agreement on his part. If you think there was another reason, what was it? Regardless, that is not the issue. So, here goes again:

Mar 9:
He: I'm going to pay you your $200 back. But I also want my $100 back. When are you going to pay me?
She: I'm not going to. But I need the $200 back, and you agreed on March 1 to give them back, knowing that I needed them.
He: Yes, alright, I'm paying you back. I agreed to pay you back, and in doing so, I implicitly gave you more time for the $200. But I just wanted to know, because you agreed to pay me back the $100 long ago. I get that you do not have them now.
She: No, I mean, I'm not paying you back at all. Not now, and not later. It's not that I really need the $100. I only need $100. But you agreed to pay $200, so you have an obligation to pay $200.
He: But if you can pay $100, you have an obligation to pay $100 as well.
She: Sure, but I will not pay you.
He: Why?
She: Because I do not want to. I will keep the $100.
He: So, okay, you will pay me later, because I implicitly gave you more time?
She: No, I will never pay you.
He: But you promised.
She: Yes, but I choose to break my promise, so that I keep $100. Think what you want, but you have an obligation to pay me $200.
​

My advice to him is the same as before.

If I agree to pay contingent upon (oh say) services being rendered and services aren’t rendered, then I didn’t make a pure non contingent promise. The scenario calls for being taken as is, where what is specifically and explicitly said is what is being held for everyone to account.

Now, all of a sudden, fuzzy words like “tacit” and “implicit” are sprouting about. Reminds me of threads on tipping. No one said anything about what might have been in the back of their minds. This is the doorway to justifying immoral behavior. No one cares nor should care about what was residing in the dark reces/uses of his mind. If it’s not apart of the program with zeros and ones, a computer is not going to consider it. Since his expectation is at best a product of self-produced thought, maybe there is less to analyze than we might prefer.

I think we have ourselves a moral disagreement I'm not sure how to get out of. Your sense or right and wrong says he has an obligation to pay. Mine says he does not. The hypothetical scenario was meant to convince you, as your hypothetical scenarios were meant to convince me. It's not working. Fortunately, I will never be in that situation, and neither will you (not even giving advice; the scenario I considered is too improbable to happen), so nothing will come out of the disagreement.

There do not seem to be significant practical consequences, fortunately.

 

[fast]

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. 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.

If I would have left out the first agreement and asked if he has a moral obligation to pay it back, you likely would have wanted more information, and had I come back and said he agreed at gunpoint, you would rightfully say that the threat of violence either nullified the obligation or more likely that the threat of violence negated the promise made under duress disallowed an obligation to even form.

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.

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.

If he doesn’t pay her back like he said he would, I don’t think he should be trusted. We already know she can’t keep her word, and ya know what, that’s up to her. How can I justify advising him to not pay after he’s already said he would. He can. He’s able. He’s willing. Sure, I can SAY (speak the words) that he doesn’t have an obligation, but the first agreement was not a factor in his mind when he GAVE HIS WORD.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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.

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)?

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.

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?

 

[steve_bank]

As WC Fields said, never give a sucker an even break.

 

[fast]

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.

I like the way you set this up. The reasoning was “does not have cash at hand.” There’s nothing tying the two separate agreements except that it so happens to be between the same parties; hence, there’s no “i’ll take it off your rent” lingo. It’s as if there are two distinct contracts. Maybe if you didn’t let the fact the same parties are involved in both contracts consume you, you wouldn’t commingle them. There’s no “but”. It’s “and”. There shouldn’t be a “so.” Joe can see the convenience of using a calculator since both of his separate agreements are with the same person, but as soon as Jack said no, he should realize that it was just that, a convenience. He should treat each agreement just as separately as he would had the agreements been with two different people.

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.

There’s ole calculator-happy Joe again still swinging those words about, “I only owe you $100.” If a company owes you a referral check yet you owe a bill, there’s a good chance that you’re gonna get a late charge if you fail to pay your entire payment. You don’t pull out the ole calculator and subtract the referral fee from the balance due. Joe owes and is owed, and somebody doesn’t seem to get that. Math doesn’t absolve contracts or agreements.

In one agreement, Joe was supposed to fix the sink. He did, so check (mark).
In another agreement, Joe was supposed to pay rent ($300). He didn’t, so no check.

Joe needs to put the calculator down and review the separate agreements, and it would benefit him greatly to see my point of view if he also closed his eyes to who the agreements are with. He should ask himself, did I do as I said I would do with agreement one and if he did as he said he would with agreement two.

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.

So long as one agreement doesn’t tie to the other, meaning, there was no part of one agreement intertwined with the other (e.g. say man, fix my sink and i’ll knock $200 of the rent), then Jack is wrong. Judge the performance of the contracts (or agreements) independently.

Jack owes Joe $200. After all, he agreed to pay Joe for fixing the sink. Rent had nothing to do with that agreement. Recall, it was all about not having the cash at the time. If the agreement regarding the sink was between Joe and Jack’s son while the agreement for rent was between Joe and Jack, we wouldn’t be doing all this subtracting.

When it’s the same person, the agreements must be viewed independently; otherwise, you’ll justify not keeping your word based on other people not keeping theirs. That’s no way to be.

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?

No moral obligation to pay!? He just got finished telling the man yesterday the only reason for not paying him was because he didn’t have the cash. Now all of sudden, the next day, on a completely unrelated matter, after Joe screws Jack over by refusing to pay $300 rent, Jack justifies his refusal to keep his word on one agreement because of the immoral deeds of another.

If jack had any character about him, was principled, had some ethics about him, and a working moral compass to boot, Jack would teach Joe a lesson about what it means to be honest: pay the SOB just like he said he would; that, and throw his ass out for not paying rent. If I’m Jack, (and if my ‘moral hat’ is on tight—not too tight but snug), he’ll understand that I’m a person of my word, no matter what unscrupulous lad might come my way.

 

[DBT]

If it is the moral duty for a borrower to repay their loan within a reasonable time frame, not doing so without explanation to the lender means that the borrower fails to meet their moral obligation, creating stress for the lender, thereby straining whatever relationship there may be between the two parties.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I like the way you set this up. The reasoning was “does not have cash at hand.” There’s nothing tying the two separate agreements except that it so happens to be between the same parties; hence, there’s no “i’ll take it off your rent” lingo. It’s as if there are two distinct contracts. Maybe if you didn’t let the fact the same parties are involved in both contracts consume you, you wouldn’t commingle them. There’s no “but”. It’s “and”. There shouldn’t be a “so.” Joe can see the convenience of using a calculator since both of his separate agreements are with the same person, but as soon as Jack said no, he should realize that it was just that, a convenience. He should treat each agreement just as separately as he would had the agreements been with two different people.

The "hence" does not seem to follow, though he did not use the expression “i’ll take it off your rent”. The fact is that Jack did not just say "no". If he had, then he could have given after that a different argument, evidence, etc. But Jack made it clear he was breaking his moral obligation. Again, it was meant to get an immediate assessment from you that Joe did not have a moral obligation to pay here. I guess we are at an impasse - it's looking more and more as a fundamental moral disagreement. Those aren't so easy to find, but sometimes, they happen.

There’s ole calculator-happy Joe again still swinging those words about, “I only owe you $100.” If a company owes you a referral check yet you owe a bill, there’s a good chance that you’re gonna get a late charge if you fail to pay your entire payment.

Yes, there is a good chance of that. It's different with a company in that situation, where no one is making a decision to break their moral obligations, and also, there are legal regulations in place, etc.

You don’t pull out the ole calculator and subtract the referral fee from the balance due. Joe owes and is owed, and somebody doesn’t seem to get that. Math doesn’t absolve contracts or agreements.

In one agreement, Joe was supposed to fix the sink. He did, so check (mark).
In another agreement, Joe was supposed to pay rent ($300). He didn’t, so no check.

Joe needs to put the calculator down and review the separate agreements, and it would benefit him greatly to see my point of view if he also closed his eyes to who the agreements are with. He should ask himself, did I do as I said I would do with agreement one and if he did as he said he would with agreement two.

He would be losing valuable information if he closed his eyes to whom the agreemetns were with. In human relations, we keep an intuitive track of obligations in the long term. It would not benefit Joe to reject what is obvious to his moral sense. So, we disagree.

So long as one agreement doesn’t tie to the other, meaning, there was no part of one agreement intertwined with the other (e.g. say man, fix my sink and i’ll knock $200 of the rent), then Jack is wrong. Judge the performance of the contracts (or agreements) independently.

It seems fundamental, yes. My scenarios are meant to debunk your claim that one has to judge the contracts or agreements independently, by means of counterexample. It's not working because you insist on that, instead of reckoning they are in fact counterexamples. There might be something else I'm not seeing and that prompts your judgment, but so far, I haven't found it, so it seems like a raw clash (i.e., your moral sense and mine just disagree, and there is no way around that).

Jack owes Joe $200. After all, he agreed to pay Joe for fixing the sink. Rent had nothing to do with that agreement. Recall, it was all about not having the cash at the time. If the agreement regarding the sink was between Joe and Jack’s son while the agreement for rent was between Joe and Jack, we wouldn’t be doing all this subtracting.

When it’s the same person, the agreements must be viewed independently; otherwise, you’ll justify not keeping your word based on other people not keeping theirs. That’s no way to be.

You keep making that argument. Okay, I get that you believe that. But that Joe (and Jack) are not on the wrong by not paying when the other party has made it clear they're going to break their own moral obligation is obvious to me. That's the very reason I came up with the scenarios, hoping it would look obvious to you as well. My assessment is of course that whether it's justified not keeping one's word to a person who is not keeping theirs depends on the circumstances, including factors such as why they fail to keep their word. I make that assessment precisely on the basis of counterexamples such as the ones I present.

No moral obligation to pay!? He just got finished telling the man yesterday the only reason for not paying him was because he didn’t have the cash. Now all of sudden, the next day, on a completely unrelated matter, after Joe screws Jack over by refusing to pay $300 rent, Jack justifies his refusal to keep his word on one agreement because of the immoral deeds of another.

And the reason was that he did not have the cash. Now not "all of a sudden", but after the other person made it clear that he was choosing to break his moral obligation in order to get an extra $300(!), he reasonably chooses not to pay.

If jack had any character about him, was principled, had some ethics about him, and a working moral compass to boot, Jack would teach Joe a lesson about what it means to be honest: pay the SOB just like he said he would; that, and throw his ass out for not paying rent. If I’m Jack, (and if my ‘moral hat’ is on tight—not too tight but snug), he’ll understand that I’m a person of my word, no matter what unscrupulous lad might come my way.

Well, of course I disagree. The claim "was principled" is obscure, but I think it's proper to assess morality on a case by case basis, using one's sense of right and wrong, rather than adhering to general moral theories (the "principles") that are unwarranted (as they have not been properly tested), or worse, tested as false. But here the disagreement between us seems to be about working moral compass part. Clearly, one is not working properly. We disagree about which one. But it seems it's a disagreement with no solution. It has no practical consequences, though, other than perhaps getting into an argument on line. It's not as if the cases will actually happen to either of us, either as parties or as advisers (too unrealistic for that).

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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?

I think it would not be stupid to act according to one's sense of right and wrong. In fact, it would be rational and good for your well being, except for some unusual cases among the already unusual ones. On the other hand, for someone whose sense of right and wrong agrees with mine, paying when they reckon they have no obligation to pay would seem only rational if they have some other (i.e., non-moral reason). Otherwise, they would seem to be doing something completely without reason (e.g., if Joe reckons he has no moral obligation to pay Jack, and has no non-moral reason, then it would be puzzling if he were to pay Jack. It would appear like an action with no reason whatsoever. I don't think "stupid" would describe it, though. It would just be...inexplicable, not in accordance with human psychology, alien, or something like that).

But given your moral assessment, it would not be stupid on your part to always pay, even if the other party is laughing at you and telling you they're breaking their moral obligations so that get extra money. In fact, it's better for you to pay some money (an amount that is small to you) than feel guilty after doing something your sense of right and wrong reckons is wrong, and not due to a misconstruction of the situation. Given the improbability of situations like that (obviously, the bad guys don't just laugh in your face when they want you to willingly give them money), this is not a practical issue. In at least nearly all and maybe all real cases (where we have a lot more information about the situation, which we intuitively grasp), I suspect we would probably not disagree, and we would both get the morality right.

 

[TSwizzle]

In a casual arrangement such as this, I would hang on to the $200 until I was asked for it. When asked, I would pay back $100 and explain I am withholding the other $100 as it is being used to pay a long overdue debt of $100. Then I would promise myself never to lend or borrow from that person again.

What does it being casual have to do with anything? It doesn’t give you a moral pass to shrewdly balance the books.

It's a casual arrangement based on a friendship or some kind of relationship, it makes the agreement a bit more flexible as opposed to dealing with a financial institution. Getting payment for what is owed is not "shrewdly balancing the books". It's settling an overdue debt. I have no qualms about it. Lesson learned is not to lend or borrow with this person again.

Actually, the stupid part of it all is borrowing $200 from someone that owes you $100. That makes no sense in the first place.

 

[ronburgundy]

Depends.

I'd say that it is within your moral rights to only give $100 back, but it isn't "stupid" to give the full $200 back.

After the first week when they didn't pay you, it becomes equivalent to theft on their part. You have a right to get your property back short of causing them direct physical harm to do it. Lying is not inherently immoral, and can even be a moral requirement. So, pretending you'll give it all back but not is not immoral itself. And I would say that if the consequence of lying is that you get back your rightful property, then you've done nothing wrong.

However if it is someone you care about and they might need the full $200 back now and you don't really need the $100 now, then give the $200 back and hopefully they will be able to pay you in the future. IOW, giving the $200 is not morally required but would be a kind and generous act, and it's not stupid to be kind.

 

[fast]

Angra Mainyu,

I want to take this moment to explicitly express that I have respect for you and value your perspective. Thank you.

In my struggle to reconcile what seems to be differences, it has dawned on me what might be going on. Explaining it, with my atrocious skills at clearly and concisely explaining it might require ibuprofen afterwards, so forgive me as I take a pot shot at explaining it.

You speak of one party having an obligation. I’m sure you recognize people can have a variety of obligations, but when you speak of a particular obligation, it’s singular in nature (which it should be if you’re focused on one), whereas I am so hung ho on compartmentalizing things, I don’t complete what you might call something similar to a cost-benefit analysis.

Your stance is reminiscent of an approach a judge might take when reconciling the fall out from a divorce or dissolution of a business partnership. You look at everything and make an evaluation that’s reflective of all things considered. That is not abnormal. When most people list the pros and cons of something, it culminates in a single overall conclusion after the evaluation.

When the benefits of something or some course of action outweigh the costs, people won’t conclude that the course of action is harmful; indeed, they’ll say it’s beneficial, and they’ll do that even if there are elements (or fragments) of harm within the cons.

What I see is the preanalysis. I see Jack owing $200, and I see Joe owing $300, so I don’t have a conclusion whereby I arrive at a single obligation (Joe owes $100). I see two obligations. If you were a judge (and remember, I admitted there was an air of unfairness in what I’ve been saying), you would evaluate (as would the judge) the individual things I see and arrive at your conclusion.

If there is a tradition that is outdated and it’s replaced with a more progressive appeal, I see harm (the destruction of the tradition) and I see benefit (the bringing of the new), and if the new outweighs the old, there is a net benefit and thus won’t be regarded as harmful but beneficial. People will refuse to acknowledge my take that there is harm because they want to reserve that term for post analysis only.

If you write 3 checks ($100 a piece) and make 10 deposits ($100 a piece), I see the parts and label them for what they are. You may evaluate the transactions and see $700 and see a net gain, and that’s fine. I do too, but I see the destruction of tradition as harmful (not necessarily as a post analysis conclusion though). The net gain may not be harmful overall but in fact beneficial. Kinda silly of me to say it’s harmful huh, when generally people save such attribution for the final analysis.

How about this: are there two individual obligations that when evaluated yields a net obligation; or neither promise alone makes for an obligation and it’s the net difference of the promises that breeds the obligation?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

fast,

Thanks; I also respect you and value your input.

Regarding your analysis, I'm not sure I'm getting it right, but I do think I am trying to assess the whole thing. But it's not only the whole thing combining the $100 and the $200 into a single obligation, but rather, trying to assess their respective obligations from the perspective of the whole interaction and the relationship between the two. For instance, in the first scenario you described here, I think he probably should pay $200 as you think, rather than only $100. On the other hand, it the scenario I described here, I think it's only $100. I make those assessments intuitively, but if I had to guess the reason, I think it has something to do with the entire context of their interaction. In particular, in one case, she needs the money, and while she failed to pay before, the reasons are unspecified, and he agreed to pay knowning she had already failed to pay. In the other scenario, she grants that she's immorally not paying just to get an extra $100. I think her callous behavior with respect to the previous agreement may well be what makes a difference.

Generally, the whole relationship between the two people matters. For example, suppose my mother asked me for $400 the day before yesterday, and told me she'd give them back to me on Friday. If, on Friday, she tells me she got a great offer for a tour and she spent the money, so she'll pay me back later, then she's not doing anything wrong, and has no obligation to give them back (actually, she may just keep them). Now, I'm not saying that that would be the case for every mother with respect to her son. It depends on the situation. But I know she would not have an obligation. On the other hand, if a coworker did the same, she'd be acting immorally by spending the money on a tour when she promised to give it back to me. And this is so even if both my mother and the coworker use the same words, telling me that they'll give me the money back on such-and-such day, etc.

I think you also consider the whole thing when making those assessments, by the way. When you focus on those separate promises in your anaysis, I think that's probably because, upon contemplating the whole thing intuitively, you reckoned that those two remain separate for the morally relevant matters at hand.

But why do we have different intuitions in some of the cases we have presented?

I can only speculate here, but I think that one potential reason is that sometimes, in hypothetical scenarios we are unfamiliar with (including but not limited to unrealistic ones), it's very difficult to fill in the blanks and make good probabilistic assessments about what is really going on in the interaction between the people whose obligations we are trying to assess, and that makes it difficult for us to get the right moral answer. In other words, the descriptions of the scenarios in this thread are not only incomplete (as always), but unfamiliar, and it may be that you and I are intuitively making different probabilistic assessments about other parts of their relationship, and things like intent, information available to each of the parties, etc., so we are actually assessing considerably different scenarios 'in our heads' so to speak. If so, the moral disagreement may not be fundamental after all, even if we can't find a way out. Still, there is an alternative possibility: it might happen also that the sense of right and wrong of different people diverge in some unrealistic scenarios, and this is happening here. I believe the human sense of right and wrong is generally reliable in realistic and in many unrealistic scenarios, but there are unrealistic scenarios when it is not so reliable, so either of us might be going wrong. I do not know for sure.

But as I said before, I do not think in an actual scenario we would have much trouble figuring out our moral obligations. In an actual scenario, we would have plenty of further information about our respective relations with the other person, so we would both very probably be able to make an informed and correct moral assessment (even if we might not be able to pinpoint the reasons for our assessment).

At any rate, as I said, I would agree that you're not being stupid. I think your friend probably made the following mistake: she failed to put herself properly into your shoes, and consider how your sense of right and wrong was assessing the matter. Maybe she is thinking of a scenario very different from the one you had in mind, by filling in the blanks differently.

If there is a tradition that is outdated and it’s replaced with a more progressive appeal, I see harm (the destruction of the tradition) and I see benefit (the bringing of the new), and if the new outweighs the old, there is a net benefit and thus won’t be regarded as harmful but beneficial. People will refuse to acknowledge my take that there is harm because they want to reserve that term for post analysis only.

I'm not sure I'm getting this right, but if you're talking about a tradition about how to evaluate obligations, I see both the tradition and the new idea as approximations that may yield the right verdict in cases that may be more or less common depending on the place, time, country, etc., but not as a replacement for the basic method of considering things on a case by case basis, and using the intuitive human sense of right and wrong. There is no need to destroy the tradition, or to replace it. Rather, it's about considering that neither theory or method (the traditional or the new one) is general, but a shortcut applicable to some specific cases (maybe a good shortcut in some social environments, in the sense it works in nearly all cases in those environments, but we should take into consideration it might not work in others).

How about this: are there two individual obligations that when evaluated yields a net obligation; or neither promise alone makes for an obligation and it’s the net difference of the promises that breeds the obligation?

I tend to think there is no simple answer. Rather, I think the relationship between two people results in many obligations, forming a very complex network. Promises do create some of those obligations, but the extent and conditions of them depend not only on what is said, but also on all sorts of complex interactions (e.g., consider the scenarios with my mother vs. my coworker above: they may both say the exact same words, and yet the resulting obligations are very different; that is so because of the whole context of the relationship between each of them and me).

In short, I think that we can generally make proper assessments in realistic cases (and many unrealistic ones), but the study of the rules by which the obligations are governed (including those involving promises) is a very difficult matter for future research in human psychology and moral philosophy.

 

[Gun Nut]

By paying back only $100 you ARE keeping to the deal. You paid her $200... it's just that $100 of it evaporated with the closing of the previous deal.

I do not think the thought experiment survives past the "How can she have $200 to lend you if she didn't have the $100 to reimburse you" observation.

 

[zorq]

I agree with Gun Nut... who is agreeing with Treedbear back on post #7.

It is an unrealistic scenario. The exploration of moral intuition between fast and AM is fascinating but so implausible that it is impractical, at least to my POV.

Suspending my disbelief for a moment though; I have to say that I agree with Angra Mainyu. The context is key, and we gain more information when we consider all the aspects of the relationship between the two parties rather than segregating individual aspects of their relationships into self contained units. Choosing to ignore ANY part of the relationship context when coming to a final evaluation of which course of action to proceed with is a mistake.

Fast's insistence on separating the agreements into discreet moral choices reminds me of the runaway trolly problem. Would fast be willing to divert the trolly onto the side track killing one person or would he abstain and let the trolly kill 5? Taken as a seperated choice, I would never choose to deliberately kill one person by my intentional action. It's the larger context that gives that option some merit.

Fast insists that the moral quandary under consideration is not a dichotomy like the trolly problem in which the two agreements have a necessary link. In the trolly problem we are not given the option to both divert the trolly away from the 5 workers and NOT divert the trolly into the lone worker. We are FORCED to take both options into consideration because the two are inextricably linked. But is this moral quandary really that different? Not a single scenario presented in this thread involves instantaneous decisions by the two parties. Each one happens over a period of time which gives one of the parties experience and knowledge about the other before the final judgement is made. This establishes the relationship between the two people. I have never made a decision in my life in which I did not bring all of my knowledge, experience, and intuition to bear to reach a judgement. It is unrealistic to me for a person to blind themselves to knowledge they know might be relevant.

To me, the two agreements are inextricably linked.

 

[fast]

“It’s an unrealistic scenario.”

I don’t think this is as unrealistic as it seems. I say this because some older people have recollected similar situations where similar circumstances have occurred. As to the issue of whether an obligation continues to exist, I just don’t know.

But, if I tell you (unrealistic as it might be) that’ll i’ll pay you $200 back, i’m not going to use that opportunity to balance the books for your failure to pay me as you had originally said you would. It seems dishonorable. Maybe it’s technically not if the obligation isn’t really there, but say what some might, it has the feel of being wrong.

That’s not to say I might not grin if I see another otherwise good person say towards an otherwise bad person, “hey, you screwed me; I screwed ya back!” In the end, it may be an equitable and fair outcome, but I would not personally place trust in such a person should I enter into such an agreement with him, and that’s because his sense of obligation is in stark disaccord with my view on his willingness to keep his word.

 

[Treedbear]

“It’s an unrealistic scenario.”

I don’t think this is as unrealistic as it seems. I say this because some older people have recollected similar situations where similar circumstances have occurred. As to the issue of whether an obligation continues to exist, I just don’t know.

But, if I tell you (unrealistic as it might be) that’ll i’ll pay you $200 back, i’m not going to use that opportunity to balance the books for your failure to pay me as you had originally said you would. It seems dishonorable. Maybe it’s technically not if the obligation isn’t really there, but say what some might, it has the feel of being wrong.

That’s not to say I might not grin if I see another otherwise good person say towards an otherwise bad person, “hey, you screwed me; I screwed ya back!” In the end, it may be an equitable and fair outcome, but I would not personally place trust in such a person should I enter into such an agreement with him, and that’s because his sense of obligation is in stark disaccord with my view on his willingness to keep his word.

Trust has to be mutual. That's why I don't understand how you could seek to borrow any money from her when she had already demonstrated her own ongoing lack of integrity. There's a distinct irony in assuming she should trust you when it's obvious to everyone you have no reason to trust her. The only exception I can see is as an act of charity, which would be commendable if that was the motive. But that would imply you've forgiven her debt.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

“It’s an unrealistic scenario.”

I don’t think this is as unrealistic as it seems.

The unrealistic part is the whole, you don't discuss the owed $100 during the $200 borrowing episode.

But, if I tell you (unrealistic as it might be) that’ll i’ll pay you $200 back, i’m not going to use that opportunity to balance the books for your failure to pay me as you had originally said you would. It seems dishonorable.

It seems passive aggressive, but from you, it fits I suppose.

 

[fast]

“It’s an unrealistic scenario.”

I don’t think this is as unrealistic as it seems. I say this because some older people have recollected similar situations where similar circumstances have occurred. As to the issue of whether an obligation continues to exist, I just don’t know.

But, if I tell you (unrealistic as it might be) that’ll i’ll pay you $200 back, i’m not going to use that opportunity to balance the books for your failure to pay me as you had originally said you would. It seems dishonorable. Maybe it’s technically not if the obligation isn’t really there, but say what some might, it has the feel of being wrong.

That’s not to say I might not grin if I see another otherwise good person say towards an otherwise bad person, “hey, you screwed me; I screwed ya back!” In the end, it may be an equitable and fair outcome, but I would not personally place trust in such a person should I enter into such an agreement with him, and that’s because his sense of obligation is in stark disaccord with my view on his willingness to keep his word.

Trust has to be mutual. That's why I don't understand how you could seek to borrow any money from her when she had already demonstrated her own ongoing lack of integrity. There's a distinct irony in assuming she should trust you when it's obvious to everyone you have no reason to trust her. The only exception I can see is as an act of charity, which would be commendable if that was the motive. But that would imply you've forgiven her debt.

If I’m the borrower, the trustworthiness of the lender is irrelevant. If you tell me you have to have it back, I should not say I will pay it back if I tell you I will but won’t.