What to do?

[SwizzleStick]

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.

Absolutely. That is crystal clear to me. Thinking otherwise is completely foreign to me and something I can’t comprehend.

 

[SwizzleStick]

It seems the OP has a lot of discretion about what he can do with the money. No. He was told to give all the money to the son. If that were not the case, he would not be able to contemplate giving the money to someone other than the son. No, I disagree. Just because one contemplates a choice doesn’t mean he should. Overstepping bounds here would be immoral and could be criminal. So why not use those discretionary powers to bring about some good results? Because discretionary powers do not exist in this scenario.

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!!

The father wanted the money given to the son. Therefore, the money belongs to the son and should be given to him. I cannot begin to understand how contemplating anything else is an option, such as stipulating how and when the money would be given. To take that task upon oneself independently without that instruction from the father would be wrong. Upon the death of the father, every cent of the money should immediately be given to the son, unless the father stipulated otherwise, but that was not the case as outlined in the original post. So, no other action can or should be taken. The son should be given all the money immediately.

A man is dying and asks you to make sure that all the money he has left goes to his son…

 

[John21652]

The father wanted the money given to the son. Therefore, the money belongs to the son and should be given to him. I cannot begin to understand how contemplating anything else is an option, such as stipulating how and when the money would be given. To take that task upon oneself independently without instruction from the father would be wrong. Upon death of the father, every cent of the money should immediately be given to the son, unless the father stipulated otherwise.

No-one is denying the son the money. The father and son were estranged. Despite that, the dying father still wants his son to get the money. He obviously still loves his son. The Op, charged with handling the money, investigated the son. The son is involved in a horrendously immoral business. Is it not safe to assume that the father-son estrangement was because of the son’s involvement in an immoral business? Is it not safe to say that the father did not approve of his son’s immoral business dealings? After all, despite his obvious love for his son, he allowed an estrangement. And would it not be safe to say that the father would still want his son to give up his illicit business dealings? After all, the father must have thought so badly of his son’t illicit dealings that he was estranged from his beloved son. Obviously they were in disagreement about something and that something is most probably the son’s immoral business. Therefore, is it not safe to assume that the father would want his son to clean up his act? Therefore, by demanding that the son give up his immoral ways before getting hold of the money, the OP is acting in accordance with the long held convictions of the father. Convictions so strongly held that the father allowed an estrangement from his son to continue for a very long time. Placing the money in trust until the son reforms is not stealing from the son. It is not even denying him the money. The son will deny himself the money only if he continues with a lifestyle the father obviously disaproved of. The OP is acting with the discretionary powers obviously given to him and it is safe to assume that he was given those discretionary powers because he was trusted to fulfill the fathers wishes. One of those wishes would obviously have been for a reformed son, one who conforms to his fathers moral sensibilities, which were flaunted over the last few years of the father’s life.

 

[SwizzleStick]

No-one is denying the son the money. The father and son were estranged. Despite that, the dying father still wants his son to get the money. He obviously still loves his son. The Op, charged with handling the money, investigated the son. …

So far, so good. The son must be found so that he can receive his money.

…Is it not safe to assume that the father-son estrangement was because of the son’s involvement in an immoral business? Is it not safe to say that the father did not approve of his son’s immoral business dealings? After all, despite his obvious love for his son, he allowed an estrangement. And would it not be safe to say that the father would still want his son to give up his illicit business dealings? After all, the father must have thought so badly of his son’t illicit dealings that he was estranged from his beloved son. Obviously they were in disagreement about something and that something is most probably the son’s immoral business. Therefore, is it not safe to assume that the father would want his son to clean up his act? Therefore, by demanding that the son give up his immoral ways before getting hold of the money, the OP is acting in accordance with the long held convictions of the father. Convictions so strongly held that the father allowed an estrangement from his son to continue for a very long time. Placing the money in trust until the son reforms is not stealing from the son. It is not even denying him the money. The son will deny himself the money only if he continues with a lifestyle the father obviously disaproved of. The OP is acting with the discretionary powers obviously given to him and it is safe to assume that he was given those discretionary powers because he was trusted to fulfill the fathers wishes. One of those wishes would obviously have been for a reformed son, one who conforms to his fathers moral sensibilities, which were flaunted over the last few years of the father’s life.

All possible, but all conjecture. I am not being argumentative, but I must reject that discretionary power exists because that was not outlined in the original post. The son gets the money sans moral judgment, assumptions, and any withholding or control from the OP. Period.

Also, the father allowed the estrangement? Perhaps he didn’t have a choice. The son may have cut off all contact and the father may have had no choice but to love from a distance. Who knows? We can speculate til the cows come home, but it doesn’t really matter. He wanted his son to have all his money upon his death. So, the son gets all the money upon the death of his father.

 

[catharina]

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.

You’re wrong in every instance.
Read Post # 19.

 

[SwizzleStick]

You’re wrong in every instance.
Read Post # 19.

Yes, indeed, this is exactly right, or maybe I should say this is right on the money.

puzzleannie,

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.

 

[John21652]

So far, so good. The son must be found so that he can receive his money.

The son has been found. The OP went and spoke with him.

All possible, but all conjecture.

Not conjectural. All deduced from the available information.

I am not being argumentative,

Nothing wrong with being argumentative. It’s how we learn!!

but I must reject that discretionary power exists because that was not outlined in the original post.

True, the discretionary power was not mentioned in the OP. However, I am assuming the man charged with the money is honest and trusted by his dying friend. There is no indication of any formal or legal arrangements regarding dispersal of the money. It was a death bed conversation. The dying man therefore trusted his friend to do the right thing.

The son gets the money sans moral judgment, assumptions, and any withholding or control from the OP. Period.

Disagree. Totally. The son is in a bad scene. No moral judgement required. The facts show the father and son had a falling out. The logical inference is the pornography is the cause of the estrnagement. Supporting fact- the friend knew where to find the son, despite the father and son not having had a relationship for some years. Therefore, for some years the father knew what his son was up to and dissaproved.It doesn’t matter who initiated the estrangement, the cause was most probably the son’s involvement in the porno industry.

Also, the father allowed the estrangement? Perhaps he didn’t have a choice. The son may have cut off all contact and the father may have had no choice but to love from a distance. Who knows?

True, as I indicated just above.

We can speculate til the cows come home

No, we don’t have to speculate. We can logically infer what the circumstances are.

,

but it doesn’t really matter

It does really matter. Regardless of who intiated the estrangement, the father still loved his son yet must have felt so strongly against his son’t involvement in porno that they fell out. Is it not safe to assume that the father would feel that strongly right up to his death? Or would you suggest that the father relented on his death bed and said, “Oh well, it doesn’t really matter.”? In other words, if you agree with that, then you are suggesting that he had a moral relapse. Considering how he trusted his friend with the money, in the absence of any evidence for formal legal responsibilities, it is safe to infer that the father was an extremely moral man right up to the time of his death.

.

He wanted his son to have all his money upon his death. So, the son gets all the money upon the death of his father.

Wrong. No where does it state in the OP that the son was to get the money “on his death”. The OP states 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. There are no imperatives regarding time.

Therefore I conclude that the friend charged with giving the son the money would be right and justified in setting conditions on the son gaining posession of the money in acordance with the inferred characteristics of the father and the inferred details relating to the son’s immoral business dealings. To do otherwise would mean that the son has effectively thwarted the moral sensibilities of his father, which obviously cost the father a relationship with his beloved son, so strongly held were his moral convictions.

To hand over the money without supporting the fathers morality would be an act most shamefull and vile!

 

[SwizzleStick]

The son has been found. The OP went and spoke with him.

Not conjectural. All deduced from the available information.

Nothing wrong with being argumentative. It’s how we learn!!

True, the discretionary power was not mentioned in the OP. However, I am assuming the man charged with the money is honest and trusted by his dying friend. There is no indication of any formal or legal arrangements regarding dispersal of the money. It was a death bed conversation. The dying man therefore trusted his friend to do the right thing.

Disagree. Totally. The son is in a bad scene. No moral judgement required. The facts show the father and son had a falling out. The logical inference is the pornography is the cause of the estrnagement. Supporting fact- the friend knew where to find the son, despite the father and son not having had a relationship for some years. Therefore, for some years the father knew what his son was up to and dissaproved.It doesn’t matter who initiated the estrangement, the cause was most probably the son’s involvement in the porno industry.

True, as I indicated just above.
No, we don’t have to speculate. We can logically infer what the circumstances are.

,It does really matter. Regardless of who intiated the estrangement, the father still loved his son yet must have felt so strongly against his son’t involvement in porno that they fell out. Is it not safe to assume that the father would feel that strongly right up to his death? Or would you suggest that the father relented on his death bed and said, “Oh well, it doesn’t really matter.”? In other words, if you agree with that, then you are suggesting that he had a moral relapse. Considering how he trusted his friend with the money, in the absence of any evidence for formal legal responsibilities, it is safe to infer that the father was an extremely moral man right up to the time of his death.

. Wrong. No where does it state in the OP that the son was to get the money “on his death”. The OP states 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. There are no imperatives regarding time.

Therefore I conclude that the friend charged with giving the son the money would be right and justified in setting conditions on the son gaining posession of the money in acordance with the inferred characteristics of the father and the inferred details relating to the son’s immoral business dealings. To do otherwise would mean that the son has effectively thwarted the moral sensibilities of his father, which obviously cost the father a relationship with his beloved son, so strongly held were his moral convictions.

To hand over the money without supporting the fathers morality would be an act most shamefull and vile!

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree.

Also, I think you have unnecessarily complicated the scenario with all your speculation and assumptions. The original questions were:

…Do you give the man’s money to his son? Do you give it to your friend for the operation?

You give all of the money to the son as requested by his father. It is that simple.

 

[catharina]

The son has been found. The OP went and spoke with him.

Your inital error.
OP did NOT state that he went and spoke to son.
Rather, he investigated and learned the nature of son’s dealings.

Across the board, you are wrong.

 

[HNA444]

The son has been found. The OP went and spoke with him.

Not conjectural. All deduced from the available information.

Nothing wrong with being argumentative. It’s how we learn!!

True, the discretionary power was not mentioned in the OP. However, I am assuming the man charged with the money is honest and trusted by his dying friend. There is no indication of any formal or legal arrangements regarding dispersal of the money. It was a death bed conversation. The dying man therefore trusted his friend to do the right thing.

Disagree. Totally. The son is in a bad scene. No moral judgement required. The facts show the father and son had a falling out. The logical inference is the pornography is the cause of the estrnagement. Supporting fact- the friend knew where to find the son, despite the father and son not having had a relationship for some years. Therefore, for some years the father knew what his son was up to and dissaproved.It doesn’t matter who initiated the estrangement, the cause was most probably the son’s involvement in the porno industry.

True, as I indicated just above.
No, we don’t have to speculate. We can logically infer what the circumstances are.

,It does really matter. Regardless of who intiated the estrangement, the father still loved his son yet must have felt so strongly against his son’t involvement in porno that they fell out. Is it not safe to assume that the father would feel that strongly right up to his death? Or would you suggest that the father relented on his death bed and said, “Oh well, it doesn’t really matter.”? In other words, if you agree with that, then you are suggesting that he had a moral relapse. Considering how he trusted his friend with the money, in the absence of any evidence for formal legal responsibilities, it is safe to infer that the father was an extremely moral man right up to the time of his death.

. Wrong. No where does it state in the OP that the son was to get the money “on his death”. The OP states 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. There are no imperatives regarding time.

Therefore I conclude that the friend charged with giving the son the money would be right and justified in setting conditions on the son gaining posession of the money in acordance with the inferred characteristics of the father and the inferred details relating to the son’s immoral business dealings. To do otherwise would mean that the son has effectively thwarted the moral sensibilities of his father, which obviously cost the father a relationship with his beloved son, so strongly held were his moral convictions.

To hand over the money without supporting the fathers morality would be an act most shamefull and vile!

Regardless of what his son does, that is still his son. And, he asked for the money to go to him. How can you hand over a large amount of money to someone else? Like the other poster said, that is stealing.

 

[John21652]

You’re wrong in every instance.
Read Post # 19.

It’s not often I’m wrong, but I’m right this time.

Let me show you…

Puzleannie said this -

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.

Puzzleannie’s assumptions are both unfounded.

Firstly, the son is already engaged in immoral activities. The OP states this. If he recieves the money, he will be free to continue to do the evil he is already doing.
The notion of the money going to the family is a wrongly held one. The dying man trusted his friend with the money and there is no evidence to suggest anything other than a death bed agreement. Therefore the dying man’s trust in his friend was total. This leads me to conclude that the friend was a scrupulously honest individual. Therefore, the question of the money going to anyone but the son is a false assumption.

Puzzleannie says -

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.

There is no evidence of any legal agreement. merely a deathbed conversation. The notion of a legal agreement is a mere assumption.

Puleannie writes -

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.

True. Couldn’t agree more!! The evidence suggests that the friend was an honest and trustworthy friend, who would respect the wishes and the character of the dying man.

Puzleannie writes again -

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.

Obviously the dying man trusted the character of his friend. Considering the estarngement between the dying man and his son, which occured despite the father obviously loving his son, it is safe to infer that the dying man was himself of unimpeachable character, who would pick and choose his friends according to their characters. Considering how the friend immediately sought out the son, he was being true to his now deceased friend’s memory. What did he find when he found the son? He found the son engaged in immoral business dealings. Considering how we can logically infer that the father and the friend were of unimpaechable character, it is also safe to logically infer that the son’s activities would be anathema to the father’s moral character. It is also safe to logically infer that the son would continue with his immoral activities when and if he recieved the money. Therefore, it would be moral for the friend to stipulate to the son that he msut firstly give up his involvement in the porno industry before he gets his father’s money. If he were to continue in the porno business after he recieved the money, it would be a betrayal of the father’s morality, which was so strong that it caused an estrangement between ather and son.

If the son refuses to change his ways, then the estrangement would have been justified and the withholding of the money would support the father’s moral stance and his character.

If the son accepts the proviso, then the father’s moral character has been affirmed and the estrangement vindicated.

At no time is the son denied the right to the money. All he is denied is the opportunity to thumb his nose at his loving father’s morality. The money is his just as soon as he meets his father’s moral criteria, which are easily infered from the available evidence.

 

[catharina]

It’s not often I’m wrong, but I’m right this time.

Let me show you…

Puzleannie said this -

Puzzleannie’s assumptions are both unfounded.

Firstly, the son is already engaged in immoral activities. The OP states this. If he recieves the money, he will be free to continue to do the evil he is already doing.
The notion of the money going to the family is a wrongly held one. The dying man trusted his friend with the money and there is no evidence to suggest anything other than a death bed agreement. Therefore the dying man’s trust in his friend was total. This leads me to conclude that the friend was a scrupulously honest individual. Therefore, the question of the money going to anyone but the son is a false assumption.

Puzzleannie says - There is no evidence of any legal agreement. merely a deathbed conversation. The notion of a legal agreement is a mere assumption.

Puleannie writes - True. Couldn’t agree more!! The evidence suggests that the friend was an honest and trustworthy friend, who would respect the wishes and the character of the dying man.

Puzleannie writes again - Obviously the dying man trusted the character of his friend. Considering the estarngement between the dying man and his son, which occured despite the father obviously loving his son, it is safe to infer that the dying man was himself of unimpeachable character, who would pick and choose his friends according to their characters. Considering how the friend immediately sought out the son, he was being true to his now deceased friend’s memory. What did he find when he found the son? He found the son engaged in immoral business dealings. Considering how we can logically infer that the father and the friend were of unimpaechable character, it is also safe to logically infer that the son’s activities would be anathema to the father’s moral character. It is also safe to logically infer that the son would continue with his immoral activities when and if he recieved the money. Therefore, it would be moral for the friend to stipulate to the son that he msut firstly give up his involvement in the porno industry before he gets his father’s money. If he were to continue in the porno business after he recieved the money, it would be a betrayal of the father’s morality, which was so strong that it caused an estrangement between ather and son.

If the son refuses to change his ways, then the estrangement would have been justified and the withholding of the money would support the father’s moral stance and his character.

If the son accepts the proviso, then the father’s moral character has been affirmed and the estrangement vindicated.

At no time is the son denied the right to the money. All he is denied is the opportunity to thumb his nose at his loving father’s morality. The money is his just as soon as he meets his father’s moral criteria, which are easily infered from the available evidence.

Why are you talking about puzzleannie’s posts???
I referred to a post of YOURS.

You stated:
"The son has been found. The OP went and spoke with him."

Wrong, bucko. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.
You made a careless asumption and it is WRONG.
Your intial premise in that lengthy post is WRONG.

You are wrong - so don’t pull
a switcheroo and reference puzzleannie.

WRONG, fella, wrong.

 

[John21652]

Why are you talking about puzzleannie’s posts???
I referred to a post of YOURS.

No you didn’t. You referenced puzzleannie’s post #19. Go check.

You stated:
"The son has been found. The OP went and spoke with him."

Wrong, bucko. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.
You made a careless asumption and it is WRONG.
Your intial premise in that lengthy post is WRONG.

the Op wrote this

Upon his death you investigate

You are almost right, I carelessly substituted the OP for the friend. That, however, doesn’t alter the argument. Not one bit.

You are wrong - so don’t pull
a switcheroo and reference puzzleannie.

You told me to reference Puzzleannie in post #19. You referenced her post to 'prove ’ I was wrong. So I did the very logical thing and rebutted her post.
You failed.

WRONG, fella, wrong.
No you didn’t you said this

You’re wrong in every instance.
Read Post # 19.

Post #19 is Puzzleannie’s.
Go on, go back and check!

You don’t have to apologise.

 

[SwizzleStick]

It’s not often I’m wrong, but I’m right this time. I think you are wrong now.

Let me show you…

Puzleannie said this -

Puzzleannie’s assumptions are both unfounded.

Firstly, the son is already engaged in immoral activities. The OP states this. If he recieves the money, he will be free to continue to do the evil he is already doing. He is free to do that regardless.
The notion of the money going to the family is a wrongly held one. The dying man trusted his friend with the money and there is no evidence to suggest anything other than a death bed agreement. No. There is nothing to indicate that the friend was even present at the deathTherefore the dying man’s trust in his friend was total. **Maybe. **This leads me to conclude that the friend was a scrupulously honest individual. **Again, maybe. **Therefore, the question of the money going to anyone but the son is a false assumption. Not according to the orignal post. In that post, the question was if the money should go to the son as outlined by the father, or should it go to a friend’s family.

Puzzleannie says - There is no evidence of any legal agreement. merely a deathbed conversation. The notion of a legal agreement is a mere assumption. Maybe it was outlined in a will and the friend was the executor of said will?

Puleannie writes - True. Couldn’t agree more!! The evidence suggests that the friend was an honest and trustworthy friend, who would respect the wishes and the character of the dying man. Not if he considered giving he money to a friend’s family instead of the son as was stated in the original post.

Puzleannie writes again - Obviously the dying man trusted the character of his friend. Considering the estarngement between the dying man and his son, which occured despite the father obviously loving his son, it is safe to infer that the dying man was himself of unimpeachable character, who would pick and choose his friends according to their characters. **Really? How is it safe to infer that at all? Since you are inferring so much, I’ll do the same. Maybe he was a lonely old man with nobody else in his life but a neighbor who checked in with him sometimes, so the neighbor who really didn’t know the old man very well ended up with responsibility that a family member would otherwise shoulder. ** Considering how the friend immediately sought out the son, he was being true to his now deceased friend’s memory. What did he find when he found the son? He found the son engaged in immoral business dealings. Considering how we can logically infer that the father and the friend were of unimpaechable character, it is also safe to logically infer that the son’s activities would be anathema to the father’s moral character. Again, no How did you come up with that? It is also safe to logically infer that the son would continue with his immoral activities when and if he recieved the money. Therefore, it would be moral for the friend to stipulate to the son that he msut firstly give up his involvement in the porno industry before he gets his father’s money. Absolutely not, that is not the friend’s place and is way out of bounds. If he were to continue in the porno business after he recieved the money, it would be a betrayal of the father’s morality, which was so strong that it caused an estrangement between ather and son. Way too many inferences and assumptions going on.

If the son refuses to change his ways, then the estrangement would have been justified and the withholding of the money would support the father’s moral stance and his character. No such agreement was mentioned.

If the son accepts the proviso, then the father’s moral character has been affirmed and the estrangement vindicated.

At no time is the son denied the right to the money. All he is denied is the opportunity to thumb his nose at his loving father’s morality. **The money is his **just as soon as he meets his father’s moral criteria, which are easily infered from the available evidence.

I’ve bolded my comments in your post above just as I did in post #22 forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7683023&postcount=22 , but I have other comments too. You are making a lot of assumptions with no evidence to back them up, i.e. how in the world can you know druing a deathbed conversation the friend agreed to give the son the money and why is that even an issue? Why can’t it simply be that a friend agreed to carry out the last wishes of a dying man at some point before death without the implied drama of a final death scene?

Bottom line, your words, bolded in blue above say it all with the simple addition that the money is his without any other conditions being met. Period. It is that simple. I don’t know why you want to complicate the scenario with all the story lines and assumptions.

 

[catharina]

John, your posts are off the mark in every way.

An apology from me would be wrong.
I referenced Post 19 so you could (maybe) LEARN something.

Yet (AS YOU MUST KNOW) my objection is to your words:

You stated:
“The son has been found.
The OP went and spoke with him.”
You are simply WRONG.

You stated (now):
“I carelessly substituted the OP for the friend.
That, however, doesn’t alter the argument. Not one bit.”

Of course it does. There is no proof that the OP met with the son.
Your entire stance rests upon hearsay. Won’t fly in a courtroom - or here.

You are recommending that the OP defiy the wishes of the father.
He agreed to the father’s request and DIS SO in good faith.
Now he wonders if he should steal the money for a friend.

You state he should withhold the money,
with lots of flourishes ans to what/why/when.

You are wrong.

 

[SwizzleStick]

No you didn’t. You referenced puzzleannie’s post #19. Go check.

You stated:
“The son has been found. The OP went and spoke with him.”…

You made the above statement that is bolded in post #27. The bolded part is not from puzzleannie’s post #19.

The son has been found. The OP went and spoke with him.
…

 

[John21652]

I’ve bolded my comments in your post above, but I have other comments too. You are making a lot of assumptions with no evidence to back them up, i.e. how in the world can you know this is a deathbed conversation and why is that even an issue? Why can’t it simply be a friend agreeing to carry out the last wishes of a dying man at some point before death without the implied drama of a final death scene?

Bottom line, your words, bolded in blue above say it all with the simple addition that the money is his without any other conditions being met. Period. It is that simple. I don’t know why you want to complicate the scenario with all the story lines and assumptions.

Well, the Op gave us something of an intellectual problem to mull over, did he not? Mull over it I did and using the little information contained in the Op, i made my case. If you don’t like someone doing that, then don’t engage. if you don’t like someone arguing a point with you, then don’t. What you call assumptions I call logical inferences. You may not like them, that’s fine. but to come back with a why make a drama out of it shows you just don’t like an argument. That’s sad. I didn’t see the case as simply as you seem to. The Op tried to give us a dilemma, but the obvious dilemma seemed to me to be easily resolved. The real dilemma, to me, using the available evidence, was with giving the money to the son. I assumed that a dying man would not ask a total stranger, or even just an acquaintance, to handle the money/son issue in the absence of a legal agreement. Fair enough?

 

[SwizzleStick]

Well, the Op gave us something of an intellectual problem to mull over, did he not? Mull over it I did and using the little information contained in the Op, i made my case. If you don’t like someone doing that, then don’t engage. if you don’t like someone arguing a point with you, then don’t. What you call assumptions I call logical inferences. You may not like them, that’s fine. but to come back with a why make a drama out of it shows you just don’t like an argument. That’s sad. I didn’t see the case as simply as you seem to. The Op tried to give us a dilemma, but the obvious dilemma seemed to me to be easily resolved. The real dilemma, to me, using the available evidence, was with giving the money to the son. I assumed that a dying man would not ask a total stranger, or even just an acquaintance, to handle the money/son issue in the absence of a legal agreement. Fair enough?

Fair enough, I suppose. I guess I see no need to complicate such a simple issue with inferences and assumptions. And, you are correct. I don’t like arguments, especially when I see no need for one.

I concede that I should not have engaged when you began with hypothetical situations, which were intellectual exercise for you. I meant no offense.

 

[catharina]

Well, the Op gave us something of an intellectual problem to mull over, did he not? Mull over it I did and using the little information contained in the Op, i made my case. If you don’t like someone doing that, then don’t engage. if you don’t like someone arguing a point with you, then don’t. What you call assumptions I call logical inferences. You may not like them, that’s fine. but to come back with a why make a drama out of it shows you just don’t like an argument. That’s sad. I didn’t see the case as simply as you seem to. The Op tried to give us a dilemma, but the obvious dilemma seemed to me to be easily resolved. The real dilemma, to me, using the available evidence, was with giving the money to the son. I assumed that a dying man would not ask a total stranger, or even just an acquaintance, to handle the money/son issue in the absence of a legal agreement. Fair enough?

No, John, not fair enough.
You imagined that the OP met the son, spoke to him.

You imagined that. That’s inadmissable.
Your fantasy life has no relevance here.

The old man, estranged from his son,
might have been isolated from most folks.

For you (or the OP) to decide to
“change” an agreement is ludicrous,
and in this nation it would also be illegal.

As to a sense of justification and a spirit
of ungrounded defensiveness, I’ll suggest that
you go back through the thread and read your own posts.

The “solution” you gave is not a Christian response.

 

[catharina]

Well, the Op gave us something of an intellectual problem to mull over, did he not?

This statement of yours above?
No. The OP gave us no intellectual problem.
He presented what he seemed to “feel” was a moral dilemma.

It is not a moral dilemma.
The money is the son’s and
the OP promised he would give the money to the son.

End of story.