The analysis itself is pretty old. I got sick of people painting over ugly reality with pretty rationalizations a long time ago.
My in-laws had somewhat of a dispute over a matter of a few thousand dollars some years ago, when their mother died. One of the sisters wound up in control of a certain bank account, and after the burial she simply kept all the money left in the account. My spouse was angry, until I explained that we were never entitled to a dime of it, because my mother-in-law is the one who failed to manage her estate properly. We could either accept it or go to the graveyard, argue with a tombstone for a few hours, and then accept it anyway.
The fact remained that the sister-in-law did what was legal instead of what was right. She kept the money, and lost the trust and respect. We haven't forgotten. That's why if my spouse and I die unexpectedly, the guardianship of our minor children is now separated from the trusteeship for their inheritance. If they choose to live with any of my spouse's siblings, whoever that is may have to submit their expense receipts to my sister and parents in order to get a check. We were simply fortunate to have learned something about the moral fiber in the family before it impacted anything actually important.
The worst part of the whole affair for me was listening to the person whinge on and on about how much she deserved that money. She didn't. She just had her name on the paper. And that's why I was okay with her keeping it. It wasn't mine. It wasn't my spouse's. It never was. Not getting money that was never mine is a very, very, very small price to pay to learn whether someone is trustworthy. And it is now a perfect illustrative example, separating the two realities of legal contract terms and implied or traditional moral obligations.
If you want something to be fair, write the contracts to make it fair, because even a seemingly trustworthy person can bullshit himself into thinking he's doing the right thing, even while screwing everyone else over.
My in-laws had somewhat of a dispute over a matter of a few thousand dollars some years ago, when their mother died. One of the sisters wound up in control of a certain bank account, and after the burial she simply kept all the money left in the account. My spouse was angry, until I explained that we were never entitled to a dime of it, because my mother-in-law is the one who failed to manage her estate properly. We could either accept it or go to the graveyard, argue with a tombstone for a few hours, and then accept it anyway.
The fact remained that the sister-in-law did what was legal instead of what was right. She kept the money, and lost the trust and respect. We haven't forgotten. That's why if my spouse and I die unexpectedly, the guardianship of our minor children is now separated from the trusteeship for their inheritance. If they choose to live with any of my spouse's siblings, whoever that is may have to submit their expense receipts to my sister and parents in order to get a check. We were simply fortunate to have learned something about the moral fiber in the family before it impacted anything actually important.
The worst part of the whole affair for me was listening to the person whinge on and on about how much she deserved that money. She didn't. She just had her name on the paper. And that's why I was okay with her keeping it. It wasn't mine. It wasn't my spouse's. It never was. Not getting money that was never mine is a very, very, very small price to pay to learn whether someone is trustworthy. And it is now a perfect illustrative example, separating the two realities of legal contract terms and implied or traditional moral obligations.
If you want something to be fair, write the contracts to make it fair, because even a seemingly trustworthy person can bullshit himself into thinking he's doing the right thing, even while screwing everyone else over.