Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since they paid him to replace the skateboard, if he had bought a new skateboard for $170 would it have been wrong? He would have profited under those circumstances too.
No then he would have been made whole.
When you destroy someone's property two things can make them "whole". Replacing the item with the original or as near to it as possible or giving them the money for the value of the item. The kid pocketing profit off of them is immoral.
I think what we are really seeing here are two different families and the way they raise their kids and the lessons they pass on to them:
Family A: Their son broke another kids skateboard, they stepped up to the plate, did the right thing, and taught their kid to live his life like that.
Family B: Took the money, didn't need all of it to repair the damage, but turned a blind eye and let their son profit from it.
If my son had attempted to profit at the expense of others, he and I would be having a serious talk about right vs wrong, especially when a friend is involved. Family B will not have a son whose ethics are as good as Family A, if they allow him to quietly keep that money.
That is what I would do also. To keep the extra money, to me, would be "taking advantage" of the friend. This type of thing will come up often later in life and I would want my child to learn that it is not right to try to cheat a friend. The best example in adulthood would be if you are able to get something for free, such as concert tickets or meals at restaurants and you take your friends with you to the concert or meal and charge them the full price (even though it cost you nothing).To me that is not capitalism that is cheating a friend.
Although, I would have encouraged my son first to try to fix the old skateboard or use the old wheels, or whatever and then say "It cost $70 to fix/repair" . In many families paying out $170 for a broken toy can be a real hardship.
I'm not sure if it is...Is it any different than if a storm comes through, you get estimates for the damage to your roof, your insurance company cuts you a check, and you "make" some money doing the repairs yourself?
But anyhow, there are two things coming into play here. One is making yourself whole from a loss. They just as easily could have said, "Here is a gently used skateboard of like kind and quality for $80."
The other is what is "gentlemanly behavior" in polite society. I don't have the answer.
Turn it on its ear. If your son had been saving for a new skateboard, and had $100 in the bank, had his old board broke, which he could only have sold for $80 or so, but was reimbursed $170 (full retail) for it, and took that plus $100 and bought a $270 skateboard.
It has nothing to do with profiting from anyone. Skateboard was broken. Person who broke skateboard paid for what they broke. How that person whos skateboard they broke spends that money is irrrelevant.
If your car gets totaled by someone, and the insurance company pays you its value, are you required to replace with the exact model and year that was totalled? Or are you even required to buy another car? Of course not. You were paid for your loss. No law says you have to then replace what you lost.
Its about the responsibility of someone to pay for something they broke. What that person does with the money is irrelevant.
Your example involves deception--lying to the neighbor.
The OP's son didn't lie to anyone.
Yes, he did when he said he needed $170 to fix a $100 problem. And I wouldn't be lying to my neighbor. It would cost $1000 to get his tree cut down. The same way it "cost" $170 to fix the skateboard that was really only $100.
Yes, he did when he said he needed $170 to fix a $100 problem. And I wouldn't be lying to my neighbor. It would cost $1000 to get his tree cut down. The same way it "cost" $170 to fix the skateboard that was really only $100.
There's no mention in the thread of the son telling anyone he needed $170 to fix a $100 problem. The friend destroyed a $170 skateboard and his parents compensated the son for it. To me, that's where it ends. I don't see any deceptive behavior here.
I'm surprised at the differences of opinion in this thread. To me it's very clear that the son did nothing wrong, but others are equally sure he did. It would make a good question on an ethics exam.
There's no mention in the thread of the son telling anyone he needed $170 to fix a $100 problem. The friend destroyed a $170 skateboard and his parents compensated the son for it. To me, that's where it ends. I don't see any deceptive behavior here.
I'm surprised at the differences of opinion in this thread. To me it's very clear that the son did nothing wrong, but others are equally sure he did. It would make a good question on an ethics exam.
I agree. Some situations I can see the grey in but this one is really black and white to me. I don't think I would feel differently if I was on the friend side either.
When you destroy someone's property two things can make them "whole". Replacing the item with the original or as near to it as possible or giving them the money for the value of the item. The kid pocketing profit off of them is immoral.
This is the issue. There is nothing in the OP's post that says that the new skateboard is in anyway equivalent to the skateboard that he had that was broken so that does not meet your criteria listed above. If the friend went out and bought the exact same model of the skateboard and presented it to the OP's kid as a replacement (whether it cost $170 at the time he replaced it or not) I would agree with you.
The OP's kid opted for a much less expensive model because he wanted to spend his money differently now than he did when he bought the more expensive board. That doesn't mean that he should take a hit from what he spent on the first board or that he is profiting. What is to say it was not still in "like new" condition when it was crushed by the train even though he had it for a little while before it was destroyed.
How might the situation be if he originally got the board on super sale for $170 and since the price had gone up so he could no longer replace it for the $170 that his friend gave him?
There's no mention in the thread of the son telling anyone he needed $170 to fix a $100 problem.
Please let's not be deliberately obtuse here.
OP:
Quote:
Originally Posted by atina333
My son's friend broke his skateboard and the kid's parents graciously paid the full cost of the board which was only a few months old. Total of $170.
So the kid's parents simply divined the cost of the board?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
