Suppose that Dave, on his deathbed, makes Don promise never to sell out to a defense contractor. Don agrees.
Decades after Dave’s death, when Don is presented with a multi-billion-dollar offer, is Don still bound to his word? There is no possibility to talk Dave out of his vow - Dave is dead.
You know, it depends. If Dave has invented a device which he realizes could be perveted into a weapon, and for that reason wants to keep it out of military hands, Don should definitely honor his promise. But for the most part I’d say that deathbed promises are not binding.
Not everyone agreees, though. My older brother made our mother such a promise to always look after our oldest brother financially, and he kept it till our brother died. She didn’t ask me for such a promise (presumably because she knew I despised him), and I don’t know that I’d have kept it. But if I had, I would have been unethical to break it unless my brother was trying to steal from me or something.
I suspect that since Dave gives away most of his own ample salary, the only suasion Don can bring to bear is Dave’s love for him and Chris. Which may well work, but it’s tantamount to saying “For the sake of our friendship, disregard ourown principles and in return get nothing that you want.”
Which might work, but it’s their last converrsation as friends.
I only bring this up because I had the urge ot use the word “suasion” and htat bastard Will Shortz refuses to put it in a crossword puzzle.
He promised me in college that he never would. God bless him!
I already said Shortz is a bastard, you don’t have to remind me. Anyway, that promise was about your COLLEGE NEWSPAPER crossword
According to their ex…yes!
Right; the scenario as given makes it clear that Dave is highly unlikely to be persuaded. Which means that Don is still bound by the promise. But in some other, related situation, persuasion might work.
I think you misunderstand. I think Don may be able to persuade Dave to change his mind by appealing to their friendship. I’ve done stuff I wasn’t happy to do because it helped someone I cared about. I just don’t think any other appeal will work. “I need to do this for the sake of my family, so please, as my best friend, do not make this harder for me, Dave” may work.
If I were Don, I’d offer Dave right of first refusal on my stake in the company with the caveat that his refusal would nullify any previous promise I made to him. And I think that’s pretty darned considerate given the presumptuous nature of the original offer.
Really, a promise is just a contract among friends. If Dave doesn’t want to help my kids go to college because of his principles, then we’re not friends anymore, and it doesn’t matter. What if I had exorbitant medical bills to pay or something like that? For how long do Dave’s principles govern how I dispose of my own assets?
Edited to add: I don’t think selling out and donating a lot of money to charity is an ethical out. That’s like buying indulgences to get into heaven.
Wother? It’s obvious that Dave doesn’t have billions of dollars. You cannot unilaterally change the original deal and still behave ethically. You’re just trying to rationalize the dishonorable decision to break Don’s word by presenting Dave with an option he cannot possibly exercise.
No, it’s not. Partly because the word “just” in your first sentence is reductionst and dimissive, partly because promises can be made between people who do not consider themselves friends, but mostly because a promise is not a contract at all. Contracts involve exchanges of consideration and can be enforced legally. Promises involve nothing more than trust and honor.
In Don’s place I would probably sell out ro RI. But I wouldn’t try to pretend I was behaving unethcally. I’d be breaking my word unless I could persuade Dave to release me from my it, and trying to unilaterally change the terms fo the promise is not persuasion.
Om
Hang on a minute. If I were acting unilaterally, I wouldn’t consult Dave at all (though I’m within my rights to do that). And I missed where I’m privy to Dave’s financial situation, but neverthelesss let’s assume I know he is broke.
-
He could say “I wouldn’t buy you out even if I had the money.” OK, he’s not willing to back up his own principles. In that case I’m in a strong position to abandon his principles, since apparently he’s not so committed to them.
-
He could say “I’d like to buy you out, but I’m simply unable.” In this case I have to fall back on the weaker rationale that Dave cannot dictate in perpetuity how I dispose of the fruits of my own labor. Perhaps I gift him the cost basis of the investment and take the rest as I see fit. It’s weaker but still defensible.
I kind of lost your plot here, but my point here is - trust and honor between whom? Yes, perhaps I’m compromising my trust and honor with Dave himself, but he’s the one who put his principles above my own family’s well-being. I think society at large would validate this judgment, and ultimately the social level is where trust and honor matter most.
I don’t see you as someone who would break your word just for greed or convenience. That means you know at some level it’s ethically defensible, and for some reason you won’t try to articulate why.
I have made promises to people I actively despised because we meeded pe another, then kept ithe promise for te sake of the promise.
But a billion dollars is a lot of money. I am honest enough to say that I am not honorable enough to keep my word to a friend when breaking it would net me a billion bucks. But all claims that the promise is invalidated because of the size of the payout are rationalizations.
As I a, always siaying while in my EvilSkald persona: If you’re gonna be a dick, just go ahead and be a dick. Don’t dick around about it.
What would it mean if you broke that promise, though? It makes a difference whether the promise was to Albert Schweizer, Builder of Hospitals, or HMS Irruncible, Prince Douchebag of Asshat Valley. You’re asking for a social judgment and I’m pointing out there is a social difference.
I don’t think it’s news to anyone that morality is situational, and situational extremes will put extreme demands on morality. But that doesn’t require a great deal of analysis.
True, but none of my true friends would fault me for breaking that agreement in that situation either.
A billion dollars is not only a life-changing situation for yourself, but potentially could set up your heirs for decades, if not centuries to come. That’s multigenerational wealth, and not the sort of thing any rational person expects you to pass up about such piddly things as a idealistic pinky-swear that a bunch of starry-eyed post-college kids made when they were 22.
But here’s a question for the OP,
Is the multi-billion offer contingent upon keeping Dave as the creative head of the newly bought company? You say they want to hire him?
What’s the offer WITHOUT Dave’s continued participation? And WITHOUT his signing some kind of no-compete agreement that hinders him in the future?
I’m pretty much with this. And I’d ask Don what they’re doing NOW with THIS company that they couldn’t do better next week with a thousand times the money and a new company. (Assuming Dave is free to leave and do another startup.)
Addressed upthread, but I’ll recap, the multi-billion offer is contingent on Dave staying. RI will surely reduce it when he tells them to get bent. As he prbably does not have a contract with a non-compete clause with DCD, they can’t force him. So istead of $3 billlion, RI will only pay 2/3.
Dave has no reasonto sign a non-compete clause. Even if he agrees to release Don from his promise out of friendship, he’ll still see his life’s work as being stlen fro him. Love might impel him nt to prevent his buddy from becoming a filthy rich, but he won’t see a need to make himself an employee of a company he hates, especially since he (a) doesn’t care about money much, and (b) will be ab to use the payout to start another company free of RI. Or maybe just move to Middle Tennessee and raise horses
Ad of course even if Dave does have a no-compete clause, the most RI can do is force him to take a vacation for a fear year’s after making him rich. They won’t even be able to stop him from starting David Diamond Innovation in a few years, because the company they’re buying does not have Dave’s name on it, just his first initial.