Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Molby

what's the moral protocol for this, and why?

Recommended Posts

depending on the amounts involved it could even benefit the estate (not talking massive amounts) from an IHT point of view 


and for those saying they wouldn't encash the cheque

 

what if it was cash?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does stuff like this only happen on YNWA?

 

And do cheques still exist?

 

I think you should do whatever feels right Molby. You knew the person, you received the cheque and are best placed to decide what the deceased would have wanted.

 

Speaking from a personal perspective, if I wrote a cheque and died I’d want the person to have it.

Edited by Leo No.8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does stuff like this only happen on YNWA?

 

And do cheques still exist?

 

I think you should do whatever feels right Molby. You knew the person, you received the cheque and are best placed to decide what the deceased would have wanted.

 

Speaking from a personal perspective, if I wrote a cheque and died I’d want the person to have it.

 

 

yeah likewise

in fact I'm gonna send you a cheque  :thumbs:

 

but I am actually asking for a friend...seriously

and he isn't minded to cash the cheque

what we're both wondering is why not?

 

as Cobs said, what's the difference between cheque and cash, for example? will people give their cash presents back too?

 

I think this is to do with the mysticism that surrounds death in certain cultures and the desire at all times (especially when untested) to be seen to be doing the right thing

I don't even know Molby, but from his previous posts, did anyone not expect this topic to go exactly as it has?

are you a copper?

 

what's the police view on this?

Edited by Molby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I cash the cheque for your friend. He will know it’s going to a stone broke and possibly deserving case.

I will give half to charity and use the rest to increase my happiness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

depending on the amounts involved it could even benefit the estate (not talking massive amounts) from an IHT point of view 

and for those saying they wouldn't encash the cheque

 

what if it was cash?

 the cash is in your hand then...again it depends on the circumstances and amounts. 

 

I mean I wouldnt go round to my mates house with the matching kettle and toaster he gave me for a wedding present and try and give it back to his missus.

 

However if it was cash and he died within such a short time frame and we all know funeral costs are pretty exorbitant plus this mate..does he have a wife and kids? are tarquin and Jemma going to need that cash? so if cash Id give it back too under circumstances.

 

Its a s*** hypothetical anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 the cash is in your hand then...again it depends on the circumstances and amounts. 

 

I mean I wouldnt go round to my mates house with the matching kettle and toaster he gave me for a wedding present and try and give it back to his missus.

 

However if it was cash and he died within such a short time frame and we all know funeral costs are pretty exorbitant plus this mate..does he have a wife and kids? are tarquin and Jemma going to need that cash? so if cash Id give it back too under circumstances.

 

Its a s*** hypothetical anyway.

 

 

the unexamined life is not worth living

 

and it's not a hypothetical btw, unless you mean it's a hypothetical because you can't conceive of it....which is where we're pretty much at tbh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not 100% sure there wouldn't be ramifications for doing this. If it can be proven you knew the payee had deceased that's an 'adverse' material fact in a financial transaction. Not saying it's definitely illegal but there most certainly could be a case for the estate recouping the money at the very least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not 100% sure there wouldn't be ramifications for doing this. If it can be proven you knew the payee had deceased that's an 'adverse' material fact in a financial transaction. Not saying it's definitely illegal but there most certainly could be a case for the estate recouping the money at the very least.

These are technical matters

We’re talking about the so-called morality

 

And in any case if the estate doesn’t respect the wishes of the deceased then f*** em, maybe.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

doing a bit of research into this it appears it's an example of an imperfect gift and would therefore fail. The money remains in the estate.

 

So it's all a bit moot, Molby.

 

 

Interesting though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

doing a bit of research into this it appears it's an example of an imperfect gift and would therefore fail. The money remains in the estate.

 

So it's all a bit moot, Molby.

 

 

Interesting though

Except nobody would know or care or contest it

The bit that isn’t moot is the moral dilemma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except nobody would know or care or contest it

The bit that isn’t moot is the moral dilemma

 

well, as i say morally i think it's ok

 

and the bank will know about it when they're informed of the death of the individual  - they care - as, potentially, will HMRC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, as i say morally i think it's ok

 

and the bank will know about it when they're informed of the death of the individual - they care - as, potentially, will HMRC

Cool

 

I’ll send you a cheque too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what happens if the cheque bounces?

 

the cheque should be declined by the bank because they should be informed of the death of the individual and the account closed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want a serious answer you need to consider first the moral frameworks available but if you are going to argue for a particular framework this is something you should have some commitment to outside of the specific question, it's not a pick and mix where you can arbitrarily choose different frameworks for different questions. There are times when different frameworks are best but this should still be coherent overall.

 

To briefly outline how three frameworks may tackle the question.

 

Consequentialist: Here you consider the outcomes of the act of cashing the cheque, it may* be argued that the outcome is the one the dead person wanted, i.e. you to have the money. 

 

Deontologist: Here you consider whether there are any societal norms invoked, do we have rules that preclude cashing the cheque?

 

Intuitionist: Here the moral status may be whether common sense suggests it's icky or distasteful to cash the dead guy's gifted cheque.

 

Now deontologists and consequentialists are also going to disagree among themselves as to the consequences or moral rules, intuitionism is probably the weakest framework but the most commonly employed how does it feel to cash a dead guy's cheque. Now personally I may think it's icky and thus intuitively wrong but it's not something I think warrants significant moral sanction based on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want a serious answer you need to consider first the moral frameworks available but if you are going to argue for a particular framework this is something you should have some commitment to outside of the specific question, it's not a pick and mix where you can arbitrarily choose different frameworks for different questions. There are times when different frameworks are best but this should still be coherent overall.

 

To briefly outline how three frameworks may tackle the question.

 

Consequentialist: Here you consider the outcomes of the act of cashing the cheque, it may* be argued that the outcome is the one the dead person wanted, i.e. you to have the money. 

 

Deontologist: Here you consider whether there are any societal norms invoked, do we have rules that preclude cashing the cheque?

 

Intuitionist: Here the moral status may be whether common sense suggests it's icky or distasteful to cash the dead guy's gifted cheque.

 

Now deontologists and consequentialists are also going to disagree among themselves as to the consequences or moral rules, intuitionism is probably the weakest framework but the most commonly employed how does it feel to cash a dead guy's cheque. Now personally I may think it's icky and thus intuitively wrong but it's not something I think warrants significant moral sanction based on that.

If you want a serious answer you need to consider first the moral frameworks available - well to be fair, each framework has been explored in this thread, although not named; in my case, I intellectually favour the Consequentialist path; he wanted me to have the money. The Deontologist barely registers with me. I really don't care about it in this case. BUT, it's the Intuitionist that wins out for me. What I'm wondering is why? I feel I'm going against both common sense and the wishes of the deceased and I feel it would be better to unpick the motives and see if I can move forward. To me it's part of a path towards enlightenment. I also find it interesting that some people are so dogmatic in their belief that it's the wrong thing to do and wonder what cultural influences are at work.

 

but if you are going to argue for a particular framework this is something you should have some commitment to outside of the specific question, it's not a pick and mix where you can arbitrarily choose different frameworks for different questions. There are times when different frameworks are best but this should still be coherent overall. I don't quite understand why this is the case; are you saying I should always be a consequentialist in every moral dilemma?

 

To briefly outline how three frameworks may tackle the question.

 

Consequentialist: Here you consider the outcomes of the act of cashing the cheque, it may* be argued that the outcome is the one the dead person wanted, i.e. you to have the money. 

 

Deontologist: Here you consider whether there are any societal norms invoked, do we have rules that preclude cashing the cheque?

 

Intuitionist: Here the moral status may be whether common sense suggests it's icky or distasteful to cash the dead guy's gifted cheque.

 

Now deontologists and consequentialists are also going to disagree among themselves as to the consequences or moral rules, intuitionism is probably the weakest framework but the most commonly employed - do you think this will become less-so in society as time goes on?

 

 how does it feel to cash a dead guy's cheque. Now personally I may think it's icky and thus intuitively wrong but it's not something I think warrants significant moral sanction based on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well to be fair, each framework has been explored in this thread, although not named; in my case, I intellectually favour the Consequentialist path; he wanted me to have the money. The Deontologist barely registers with me. I really don't care about it in this case. BUT, it's the Intuitionist that wins out for me. What I'm wondering is why? I feel I'm going against both common sense and the wishes of the deceased and I feel it would be better to unpick the motives and see if I can move forward. To me it's part of a path towards enlightenment. I also find it interesting that some people are so dogmatic in their belief that it's the wrong thing to do and wonder what cultural influences are at work.

 

I think people generally rely on their intuitions and so strongly become committed to their intuitive response. I try to guard against this only because it's one of my areas of interest but for many people their intuition will always be their moral compass because developing a framework is hard and in lots of cases intuitions are useful. Like we don't calculate exactly how long it will take to cross the road when trying to avoid the oncoming vehicle and most of the time we don't get hit by said vehicle.

 

 

I don't quite understand why this is the case; are you saying I should always be a consequentialist in every moral dilemma?

 

Yes and no, sometimes the consequentialist will argue that some questions are best answered using a rule which is deontological or intuitionism because that gives a better outcome than trying to calculate the probabilities of various outcomes. We need to use heuristics in many areas of life but the ultimate justification for the rule or reliance on intuition is the outcome or consequence. 

 

 

do you think this will become less-so in society as time goes on?

 

Not really, what I think is that our intuitions are a product of our environment and that our intuitions are more likely to change than our reliance on them. Consider how recently most people's intuitions were that gay relationships were icky and thus wrong and how now most people are accepting of them. We don't rely on substantive moral frameworks to answer this question at the personal level in most cases our intuitions have changed. Our intuitions can be altered by discussions emanating from the discussions around substantive technical questions but these will also be influenced by the movement of organisations. It's dialectical, comrade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people generally rely on their intuitions and so strongly become committed to their intuitive response. I try to guard against this only because it's one of my areas of interest but for many people their intuition will always be their moral compass because developing a framework is hard and in lots of cases intuitions are useful. Like we don't calculate exactly how long it will take to cross the road when trying to avoid the oncoming vehicle and most of the time we don't get hit by said vehicle.

 

 

 

Yes and no, sometimes the consequentialist will argue that some questions are best answered using a rule which is deontological or intuitionism because that gives a better outcome than trying to calculate the probabilities of various outcomes. We need to use heuristics in many areas of life but the ultimate justification for the rule or reliance on intuition is the outcome or consequence. 

 

 

 

Not really, what I think is that our intuitions are a product of our environment and that our intuitions are more likely to change than our reliance on them. Consider how recently most people's intuitions were that gay relationships were icky and thus wrong and how now most people are accepting of them. We don't rely on substantive moral frameworks to answer this question at the personal level in most cases our intuitions have changed. Our intuitions can be altered by discussions emanating from the discussions around substantive technical questions but these will also be influenced by the movement of organisations. It's dialectical, comrade.

but with the intuition, doesn't 'moral environment' have a big influence?  - a dead man has bequeathed a present; of course he didn't know he was bequeathing it, just giving it, but he gave the cheque because he wanted to give money. (Talking of social etiquette, it might have been a cheque as opposed to cash because a load of tenners may have been perceived as being gauche and a bank transfer lacking the necessary physical expression)

is this a way of gilding his passing or his status once dead, like paying for an expensive funeral, lying in  state or in other cultures, placing offerings on the grave to appease the spirit? at a subconscious level are we concerned with finding ways of augmenting the status of the dead?

 

and as for whether our intuitions will change, that may be a bit of an oxymoron - I was referring to the increasing delegation of selection of alternative courses of action to machines

xref gay relationships, just because I'm supportive of all the reforms to gay rights, doesn't mean that I enjoy witnessing their physical expression - when I say 'enjoy' I mean that some acts promote a feeling of revulsion which are nothing to do with my feelings about what's right or natural - it's just physical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your revulsion to particular acts may be a result of implicit homophobia, like what are we talking about, two men holding hands? kissing? having sex? If the last well fine don't watch video's of men having sex if the previous two then that could be implicit bias. Being repulsed by something can be about aesthetics rather than due to its moral content. 

 

And yes moral environment does have an impact on our intuitions absolutely that's what I mean by the dialectic but most people's stated response will be intuited rather than based on a rigorous moral framework in the analytic sense, other philosophical frameworks will involve other moral frameworks as well I'm taking within analytic philosophy which is both my bag kinda and deeply flawed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...