Well, the world here at Westminster Place is getting grimmer and more desperate by the second, so I’m escaping to my office for a nonce to see if a break helps. As it happens, our old friend “The Ethicist,” Kwame Anthony Appiah, had a recent exchange involving death-related matters, and I didn’t care much for his analysis.
But what do I know? I couldn’t even figure out that my wife needed to go to the hospital regardless of what her protestations when in fact she was dying…
But I digress. A questioner asked the Times Magazine’s resident ethics advice columnist (and the fourth to hold The Ethicist title) whether his plan of “giving half of my inheritance to my brother without telling him of his exclusion from [their father’s] will, sparing him any additional hurt feelings,” would be ethical. Mad Dad is 90, the inquiring son is the executor of the father’s will, and he has seen that his brother has been cut out..
His question concludes, “Would this be ethical, or does the need for truth override my plan? To be clear, I would not lie. This would be more a misdirection by omission.”
Naturally—the guy is called “The Ethicist,” after all—-Kwame jumps on that last part, as would I. It’s a lie, buddy, don’t kid yourself, and not an easy one to pull off either. But unlike Appiah, this ethicist would tell the brother, “If you think you can do it, transfer the money without letting the brother know it’s from you and not the estranged father, go for it.” It’s a secret gift from you that the father will get credit for. That’s nice. You might heal one-half of that father-son rift. By then it will be too late for dead Dad.
Kwame has other concerns. “You’re effectively tampering with the message that your father means to send,” he says. Seriously? That’s a problem? A petty, “Fuck you, son!” farewell message isn’t something worth treating with reverence. Slaps at the living from the grave are cruel and cowardly unless they are conveyed before the deceased passes. Yes, as Appiah writes, the executor son should try to talk the father into an equitable distribution. Yes, say I, he should also try to talk Dad into telling his son that he’s being disinherited if that’s what he’s determined to do. But if the father refuses, there is no reason for him to be informed of the brother’s plan to be generous with his share of the inheritance. What he does with the money is none of his father’s business, and that includes giving half of it to the brother and foiling the patriarchal curse.
You can read “The Ethicist’s” analysis here.
Ethics Alarms 
“But what do I know? I couldn’t even figure out that my wife needed to go to the hospital regardless of what her protestations when in fact she was dying…”
I trust that’s dark humor (and, in theory, under that theory, the following doesn’t need to be said but I’m going to say it just in case it isn’t just dark humor… Stop that. Sometimes life is just nuts, and the craziest things happen….)
Regarding the subject at hand, my dad told me I needed to follow his wishes in the will (regards the sale of some property they have in SD); I think I’m obligated to do just that, and so is the brother here – but once he’s received his share, he’s free to do whatever he wishes, even if the father would have disapproved (as you state).
I don’t know that brother 2 wouldn’t realize brother 1 was responsible for the windfall because of what a sour relationship B2 had with dad.
You never know when you’ll fall over dead one day, as my dad literally did at the park on June 24th, a place where he and my mom would always walk the dog every morning. I would hope the article’s mad Dad had/has an epiphany and reaches out to mend things before death, but sounds like not.
In any case, I think fibbing for a good cause is really to no effect, or a bad one if B2 had false hope as result of the gift, only to be crushed when finding the truth out later.
Life is nuts.
Indeed. Life is nuts. That’s the charm and the curse.
Yes, I think that honesty is a better policy for any number of reasons here. I would talk to my dad in this instance and try and get him to at least tell his son that he is disinheriting him, if he will not change his mind.
But if that doesn’t work, trying to mislead your brother is a bad idea not least because it is almost bound to fail in the end. There are too many ways that the truth will out, just to be pragmatic. Not least — unless this guy has an absolutely serene relationship with his brother there are bound to be occasions when he is spitting mad — and one blurts out things in anger that you’d rather not have said.
Go ahead and split the inheritance with your brother, but be honest about it up front and make sure he knows you’re doing this because you think it is the right thing to do.
Also, consult your tax preparer or estate lawyer about how to do it so you don’t incur a gift tax, which would be harsh.
Yup. I’m 100% with Diego on this. There are two primary actions here. The first action is whether to shield the brother from the truth and views of the father. The heir doesn’t even know if part of the will might be a reading of the facts or a letter to the brother explaining the reasons for the decision. In that instance, the lie has to extend to depriving the brother with a parting letter.
That doesn’t mean the heir has to be complicit in this outcome. As executor, yes. As a brother, no. Which brings us to the second action: will you look out for your brother and share the inheritance? With honesty on the table, the brother can now truly know whether the brother wants a share. He’s willing and able to split. Maybe the brother wants him to hold onto it for some time or manage it for him. Maybe they want to build something together with the money.
The father has set this in motion – don’t interfere with what is meant to be. Let the message be sent and then send a new message.
A questioner asked the Times Magazine’s resident ethics advice columnist (and the fourth to hold The Ethicist title) whether his plan of “giving half of my inheritance to my brother without telling him of his exclusion from [their father’s] will, sparing him any additional hurt feelings,” would be ethical.
So much omitted here. Is there probate? If so, the will is a public document. Even if there isn’t probate, there is an ethics problem if the executor declines to let his brother see the will.
And the real issue here isn’t whether giving half of questioner’s inheritance to his brother is ethical, because the inheritance is, after all, the questioner’s property. Rather, the only issue here is whether reveal the will’s exclusion — I don’t see where the executor has a choice in the matter.
Regarding friends and the reactions of friends, a few thoughts come to mind:
1. According to Aristotle it is difficult or unworkable for someone to have more than six friends. It’s in _Nicomachean Ethics_, which I still haven’t read but at least some of its contents reached me anyway.
2. A friend of mine likes to distinguish between “friends” and “friendly acquaintances” in part simply to clarify the issue. We all have colleagues, schoolmates, friendly acquaintances–and we greatly benefit from having them in our lives. Let’s take good cheer and neighborly-ness wherever we can find it. It can be hard to know how much our kind and friendly words might mean to someone else.
3. People react to death in strange ways. Many people have no idea what to say to the bereaved, or when hearing of the death of loved one. Perhaps it’s an act of charity to “lower one’s expectations” when discussing the recently deceased. And also to “expect the unexpected,” so as to avoid disappointment.
I for one have a “nervous laugh” which I was not much aware of until well into adulthood. Now at least I can try to work around it or apologize for it when it presents itself.
charles w abbott