"I was with Richie all the way, he owed Evan 50 cents and that's it. "
It was not a loan. He didn't owe him anything. Evan GAVE him the quarters and said "here, go crazy" (or something similar). He also didn't advice him to use three quarters technically - he said "What, are you using one quarter? I'm using three!". He observed out loud what Richie was doing, and then made a factual statement about his own actions. That's not exactly advising someone.
Richie then answers sarcastically: "Oh, like it makes a difference!", and then out of his own volition uses three quarters. Which leads him to only have one more quarter left. At this point Richie says: "Hey you got two quarters? I'm out."
Evan then gives him two quarters and says: "Here, go crazy".
Again Richie obeys.
In any case, it's not a loan, it's clearly a gift. They weren't Evan's quarters after he gave them to Richie and said "Here, go crazy". After that very moment, Richie could do anything he wants with those quarters without any need for Evan's consent for his actions (except in obvious cases).
I don't see how Richie would owe Evan anything.
That being said, they were cousins, Richie would never have won it without Evan's kindness, and Richie didn't even consider Evan's perspective to the whole thing or his involvement in his win in any way for a very long time. However, Evan never really discussed his perspective with Richie thoroughly, nor did he clearly make a claim about the money. Evan's feelings were understandable and very human, but his conclusions weren't correct - Richie didn't technically owe him anything. Still, Richie was very selfish about the whole thing, and didn't really aknowledge the value of Evan's quarters and properly evaluate the fact that Evan's kindness played a big factor in his win.
Being 'friends' or 'pals', and cousins who seem to be like brothers, I think Richie -could- have been less selfish about the money, and negotiated with Evan honestly about it and heard Evan's thoughts, feelings and side of the matter fully before deciding whether to blindly follow his own greed and lust about the money or not.
I think Evan also could have been less selfish and greedy about the whole thing - he didn't really need the money, and Richie didn't really have to give him the 1000 bucks or the 13000 bucks or even the two quarters back. Why wasn't he thankful for those gifts? For me, 13000 bucks would be a big amount of money, and I would be very grateful. But he acted as like Richie was offering him a cat turd in a box.
So, it's technically a simple thing, but socially and morally a bit more complex issue - I would probably have given him as much as he wanted - what's money compared to a good (and handy) friendship with a brotherlike doctor-cousin? If I had been Evan, I would not have expected anything, and I would have (however begrudgingly) just swallowed my possible anger about the situation (though I would gladly have discussed it with Richie), because it wouldn't have been my right to make any sort of demand about that money.
They both acted foolishly, motivated by greed and selfishness. What should Richie have given Evan? There's no clear-cut answer, because it really boils down to how deep and mutually valued their cousinly-brotherly-friendship-bonds were.
Technically, Evan had no right to any of that money, and Richie had no obligation to give any of it to Evan. But would you really have done to your best friend what Richie did to Evan? Could you really have just kept so much of the money to yourself without feeling it's somewhat wrong?
Technical 'right' isn't always the same as a Moral or Social 'right'.
reply
share
[deleted]
5 years ago
As to 'what would I have done' - - well, it's such a complicated and potentially friendship-destroying situation, that I would be willing to compromise financially to keep the friendship - after all, it's more important than the money.
My solution would be to openly and thoroughly discuss this whole thing, and ask every party involved in the conversation, what they would do if they had won, and what they think is the morally most correct solution, etc. I would try to reach a consensus within the group (at least the four people most involved), and then whatever decision I would make, would be transparent, and everyone would know my decision before I make it, and the decision would be up to another discussion before I would cement it.
I don't think I could sleep with myself, if I let greed win over rationality, generosity and goodness. I would probably at least openly and freely give 33% of the victory away, especially since I couldn't have won without the gift of the quarters.
Of course if someone starts -demanding- money out of me, I would question their friendship and accuse them of being the greedy ones, and sleep much better if I didn't give much to them. It's an interesting moral dilemma, though.
reply
share