Say you're at a poker game with a group of friends. The poker game is being played at your friend's house (we will call him Sam), and you have all agreed that whoever 'hosts' the game is responsible for paying for pizza. Sam, who is hosting this game, has lost quite a bit during this session and is unable to afford the cost of pizza this time so he asks you to cover it, assuring you that he will "pay you back" at some point (though he does not specify 'when'. So you pull $50 out of your wallet and pay for the pizza.


The following week you are at another friend's house for a party and you run into Sam. You ask your buddy to repay the $50 he now owes you, but he says that he can't, complaining that he has had a "run of bad luck" and really cannot afford it right now. You take it in stride.


The following week, the two of you are at a third friend's house (we will call him "Bob" preparing to go out for an evening on the town. Sam gives his wallet to Bob while he (Sam) goes into the bathroom to change clothes. Bob looks in Sam's wallet and sees $200 in cash. Bob notifies you of the existence of this cash and, knowing that Sam owes you $50, urges you to take 'your' $50 from Sam's wallet since 'it is your money anyway.'


1. Do you take the money?


2. If you take the money, is it stealing?

 

-----signature-----

no

yes

 

-----signature-----

Yes that is stealing. It's not yours until he hands it to you. You loaned him the money and agreed with the ambiguous pay you back whenever terms.

1) You don't take the money.
2) Yes it is stealing.

 

-----signature-----

This.

When you loan money, you assume the risk of it being paid back (or not).

That $200 in the guy's wallet could be his child support payment he's going to make tomorrow, you don't know, and it's not for you to say without a court order.


Neither a borrower, nor a lender be.


It's $50 bud. Is it worth your friendship with this guy?

If $50 is that important to you, I will give you the money and you can send me the $50 when your friend pays you back, if ever. (and I mean no offense there, just making a point about things)

 

-----signature-----

No I wouldn't take it. If I did, it would not be stealing.

I'm not sure why people imagine the ambiguity of the loan only works in favor of your friend. There's no reason it can't work in your favor as well.

 

-----signature-----

The law says that you cannot come and take peoples' property if they owe you money without an order of repossession. There are rules for debt collection.

 

-----signature-----

There is legal and there is moral. It is probably stealing under the law. Not morally though.

A court order has no effect on the moral nature of the situation.

Moral > Legal

 

-----signature-----

Fair point, but I would argue morally that it's still theft (and legally it pretty clearly would be theft/stealing so the semantics probably favor my argument).


Again: you assume the risk when you loan money. That's what interest is all about and all that stuff.


Morality is subjective to a degree. I think that morally, you as the lender, should have discussed terms of repayment with the borrower if you had some expectation of it.

You can make all the arguments in the world about whether or not the guy should have been playing poker or whatever else, but the fact remains, you did not seek such arrangements for repayment upon making the loan and that's your bag as the lender to hold.

 

-----signature-----

What if he had given you a specific time that he would pay you back, such as, "I will pay you back tomorrow after I have had a chance to run by an ATM." Does your answer change?

 

-----signature-----