What to do?

[quixotic]

A man is dying and asks you to make sure that all the money he has left goes to his son with whom he has been estranged for many years. Upon his death you investigate and find out that the son is involved in the pornography business and acts as though he does not even remember having a father and he does not know that he has been left any money. In the meantime, a friend of yours has a child that needs a critical medical treatment, but their family cannot afford it. Do you give the man’s money to his son? Do you give it to your friend for the operation?

 

[mcrow]

You give the money to the Son as asked for by the father.

You sort out being honest and honoring a dying man’s wish, God will sort out the man’s son and your friend’s sick child.

 

[SwizzleStick]

A man is dying and asks you to make sure that all the money he has left goes to his son with whom he has been estranged for many years. Upon his death you investigate and find out that the son is involved in the pornography business and acts as though he does not even remember having a father and he does not know that he has been left any money. In the meantime, a friend of yours has a child that needs a critical medical treatment, but their family cannot afford it. Do you give the man’s money to his son? Do you give it to your friend for the operation?

It is the man’s money and he asked that it be given to his son. You give it to his son. It is not your money to steal and do whatever you want with it.

 

[quixotic]

So we are to just follow the wish/order?
Won’t it then be saying “I was just following orders” as heard in the Nuremberg Trials?

 

[Corki]

So we are to just follow the wish/order?
Won’t it then be saying “I was just following orders” as heard in the Nuremberg Trials?

First of all, you are not doing anything bad with the money. You are doing something morally neutral and can hope the son will not squander his inheritance. Even though he makes his living in the porno business, he surely has other things to spend his money on - some good, some bad.

But as is usual in these “either/or” moral dilemas, there are other choices too. You can ask the executor to find someone else to deliver the money.

 

[SwizzleStick]

So we are to just follow the wish/order?
Won’t it then be saying “I was just following orders” as heard in the Nuremberg Trials?

There is no choice here. It is money that belongs to someone else to do with what he wishes to be done with it. That is pretty simple. You don’t get to choose.

 

[The_Absurdist]

A man is dying and asks you to make sure that all the money he has left goes to his son with whom he has been estranged for many years. Upon his death you investigate and find out that the son is involved in the pornography business and acts as though he does not even remember having a father and he does not know that he has been left any money. In the meantime, a friend of yours has a child that needs a critical medical treatment, but their family cannot afford it. Do you give the man’s money to his son? Do you give it to your friend for the operation?

This really isn’t the dilemma you imagine it to be, not only because it’s honest to give what’s not yours to whomever it belongs, but also because you’ve ranked one man’s sins as more grevious than your own, so much to the point that your willing to deny him the money that is due him. You need only imagine if I was holding onto an inheritance that belonged to you, and withheld it on the grounds that I wasn’t fond of whatever sin to which you were especially susceptible. Not that I view things as sins–just as a caveat–but in a social sense, it still cannot be considered permissible that you declare yourself the moral authority on what’s to be done with someone else’s resources.

 

[HNA444]

You give the money to the son, because that’s what the father wanted. However, I would probably explain the situation about the child to the father’s son and maybe he would be willing to help out. Either way, that’s his father’s son and he wanted him to have the money so it should be his.

 

[SwizzleStick]

You give the money to the son, because that’s what the father wanted. However, I would probably explain the situation about the child to the father’s son and maybe he would be willing to help out. Either way, that’s his father’s son and he wanted him to have the money so it should be his.

The only point I would make is that rather than saying the money “should be his,” is that the money is his.

 

[HNA444]

There is no choice here. It is money that belongs to someone else to do with what he wishes to be done with it. That is pretty simple. You don’t get to choose.

I agree

 

[quixotic]

What about the 7th Article of Aquinas** - Whether it is lawful to steal through stress of need?
**
I answer that, Things which are of human right cannot derogate from natural right or Divine right. Now according to the natural order established by Divine Providence, inferior things are ordained for the purpose of succoring man’s needs by their means. Wherefore the division and appropriation of things which are based on human law, do not preclude the fact that man’s needs have to be remedied by means of these very things. Hence whatever certain people have in superabundance is due, by natural law, to the purpose of succoring the poor. For this reason Ambrose, Objection 3 says, and his words are embodied in the Decretals: “It is the hungry man’s bread that you withhold, the naked man’s cloak that you store away, the money that you bury in the earth is the price of the poor man’s ransom and freedom.”
Since, however, there are many who are in need, while it is impossible for all to be succored by means of the same thing, each one is entrusted with the stewardship of his own things, so that out of them he may come to the aid of those who are in need. Nevertheless, if the need be so manifest and urgent, that it is evident that the present need must be remedied by whatever means be at hand (for instance when a person is in some imminent danger, and there is no other possible remedy), then it is lawful for a man to succor his own need by means of another’s property, by taking it either openly or secretly: nor is this properly speaking theft or robbery.

Reply to Objection 1. This decretal considers cases where there is no urgent need.

Reply to Objection 2. It is not theft, properly speaking, to take secretly and use another’s property in a case of extreme need: because that which he takes for the support of his life becomes his own property by reason of that need.

Reply to Objection 3. In a case of a like need a man may also take secretly another’s property in order to succor his neighbor in need.

 

[catharina]

So we are to just follow the wish/order?
Won’t it then be saying “I was just following orders” as heard in the Nuremberg Trials?

A dying man makes a request of you.
You AGREE to that request.

He dies.
You honor the request.

NO ONE HAS ORDERED YOU TO DO ANYTHING.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

I can only add my voice to the unanimous call that the money should go to the son. It belongs to him, and to take it yourself and give it to another is stealing.

 

[catharina]

What about the 7th Article of Aquinas** - Whether it is lawful to steal through stress of need?
**
I answer that, Things which are of human right cannot derogate from natural right or Divine right. Now according to the natural order established by Divine Providence, inferior things are ordained for the purpose of succoring man’s needs by their means. Wherefore the division and appropriation of things which are based on human law, do not preclude the fact that man’s needs have to be remedied by means of these very things. Hence whatever certain people have in superabundance is due, by natural law, to the purpose of succoring the poor. For this reason Ambrose, Objection 3 says, and his words are embodied in the Decretals: “It is the hungry man’s bread that you withhold, the naked man’s cloak that you store away, the money that you bury in the earth is the price of the poor man’s ransom and freedom.”
Since, however, there are many who are in need, while it is impossible for all to be succored by means of the same thing, each one is entrusted with the stewardship of his own things, so that out of them he may come to the aid of those who are in need. Nevertheless, if the need be so manifest and urgent, that it is evident that the present need must be remedied by whatever means be at hand (for instance when a person is in some imminent danger, and there is no other possible remedy), then it is lawful for a man to succor his own need by means of another’s property, by taking it either openly or secretly: nor is this properly speaking theft or robbery.

Reply to Objection 1. This decretal considers cases where there is no urgent need.

Reply to Objection 2. It is not theft, properly speaking, to take secretly and use another’s property in a case of extreme need: because that which he takes for the support of his life becomes his own property by reason of that need.

Reply to Objection 3. In a case of a like need a man may also take secretly another’s property in order to succor his neighbor in need.

You seem to be imagining a Robin Hood scenario.

In fact, what Aquinas is speaking of is this:
if you are starving, if your neighbor is starving,
you are allowed to find/take food/drink for that scenario,
if you take from those who have a “superabundance.”

 

[John21652]

It seems the OP has a lot of discretion about what he can do with the money. If that were not the case, he would not be able to contemplate giving the money to someone other than the son. So why not use those discretionary powers to bring about some good results?

Giving the money to someone other than the son would be contrary to the dying man’s wishes and would clearly be dishonest.

Giving the money to the son may allow him, the son, to continue with his decadent lifestyle and do nothing to honour his fathers filial loyalty and honest lifestyle.

The OP could stipulate to the son that the money will be the son’s if and when he gives up his immoral ways. He could also stipulate the son must give some of the money to the boy who needs the operation. If he does these things immediately, the money is his immediately. If he refuses to do the things stipulated, the money stays in trust until the stipulated conditions are met.

As interest accrues, the OP may have even more discretionary powers available to him. He might legitimately take a manegement fee and use it to help the child who needs the operation. Of course, the principle amount would remain untouched and there would be no dishonesty!!

 

[catharina]

It seems the OP has a lot of discretion about what he can do with the money. If that were not the case, he would not be able to contemplate giving the money to someone other than the son. So why not use those discretionary powers to bring about some good results?

Giving the money to someone other than the son would be contrary to the dying man’s wishes and would clearly be dishonest.

Giving the money to the son may allow him, the son, to continue with his decadent lifestyle and do nothing to honour his fathers filial loyalty and honest lifestyle.

The OP could stipulate to the son that the money will be the son’s if and when he gives up his immoral ways. He could also stipulate the son must give some of the money to the boy who needs the operation. If he does these things immediately, the money is his immediately. If he refuses to do the things stipulated, the money stays in trust until the stipulated conditions are met.

As interest accrues, the OP may have even more discretionary powers available to him. He might legitimately take a manegement fee and use it to help the child who needs the operation. Of course, the principle amount would remain untouched and there would be no dishonesty!!

… other than the major dishonesty of adding false
conditions to the agreement he gave to the dead father.

That’s a rather major act of dishonesty.

 

[valentino]

So we are to just follow the wish/order?
Won’t it then be saying “I was just following orders” as heard in the Nuremberg Trials?

in the trials following orders meant murder.If you give money to the son whosein prostitution its bad but it cant be compared with murder.To keep the father’s request is better than you deciding how his father’s money should be spent.

 

[John21652]

… other than the major dishonesty of adding false
conditions to the agreement he gave to the dead father.

That’s a rather major act of dishonesty.

Not so. You didn’t read my first paragraph. It must be the case that the OP has a lot of discretionary power. He adds conditions that are not false. Yours is a false notion. In fact, I think you need to come back here and justify your calling of the conditions as “false”. The OP has at no time denied the rightful heir of the money and he is insuring that the fine and upstanding man who charged him with responsibility for handling the estate is left with an equally fine legacy in the form of a reformed son and possibly a cured kid.

 

[puzzleannie]

A man is dying and asks you to make sure that all the money he has left goes to his son with whom he has been estranged for many years. Upon his death you investigate and find out that the son is involved in the pornography business and acts as though he does not even remember having a father and he does not know that he has been left any money. In the meantime, a friend of yours has a child that needs a critical medical treatment, but their family cannot afford it. Do you give the man’s money to his son? Do you give it to your friend for the operation?

the dilemma makes two unfounded assumptions.

1. the son will use the money for immoral purposes and the family will use the money for a good purpose
2. the inheritance will result only in evil if the son receives, and only in good if the family receives it.

If you are the executor of an estate legally you have no option but to carry out your fiduciary duty or you are committing both a crime and a mortal sin.

If this is an informal request and the money is at your disposal, your moral obligation is even stronger because it was made at the moment of death.

You cannot know or judge what someone else will do or not do, you are in control only of your own actions, which must remain moral. You cannot do definite evil in hopes of a possibility that good may come.

the analogy about the soldier following orders does not apply in this instance, since you are not being ordered to do an immoral action.

You do not know what will happen if either party receives the money. Perhaps the son will be so touched to know his father wanted to reconcile that he undergoes a profound conversion. Perhaps the family will become corrupted by the sudden gift of money in some way. You cannot play God in a situation where your duty is a mere human one.

 

[SwizzleStick]

…Since, however, there are many who are in need, while it is impossible for all to be succored by means of the same thing, each one is entrusted with the stewardship of his own things, so that out of them he may come to the aid of those who are in need. Nevertheless, if the need be so manifest and urgent, that it is evident that the present need must be remedied by whatever means be at hand (for instance when a person is in some imminent danger, and there is no other possible remedy), then it is lawful for a man to succor his own need by means of another’s property, by taking it either openly or secretly: nor is this properly speaking theft or robbery. …

Key words bolded, enlarged and some underlined too for emphasis.