Moral dilemma - dropping a friend in it?

[Kenai]

surely his/her obligation to you as their friend outweighs their obligation to a confidence given probably without knowing the nature of the information beforehand.

It wouldn't be a stretch to assume the guy in question is friends with both parties though, I doubt many people would tell others things in strict confidence that they didn't consider at least on the level of a 'work friend'.

In reality, this guy has probably had to weigh up the value he places on two different friendships and it probably wasn't as easy a decision for him as you seem to imply.

If there is no such friendship with the 'gossiper', the next most obvious cause is as the poster above suggests, a deliberate attempt to see if this guy would pass along the knowledge. In which case you'd want to think hard about whether you really want to bring it up and how likely that possibility is.

 

[ArranJ]

Agreed

 

[LOAM]

Totally depends on if this is your job IE being paid for it and thus risk losing it or just a social "club". Can't really offer much advice due to the circumstance's being so vague.

 

[Haggisman]

Did I mention that the person at the top is a very honest, transparent and decent person?... who also happens to be married to the person spreading the rumour? .... As I said, I bloody hate politics.

Before doing anything, I would seriously consider the implications of the highlighted part here. In fact I'm surprised no-one else has been picked up on it.

If you confront the person spreading the rumour, how is their husband/wife going to take it? Regardless of truth, I don't think they'll be particularly happy about it, and potentially could create a very hostile environment within The Organisation.

Not an easy situation to deal with, and I don't envy you

 

[Macro]

Read the fist page and skipped the rest so apologies if this has already been covered.

It might be worth considering what happens if you call a meeting with the independent witnesses, say your piece and then both of the others involved deny any knowledge of what you're talking about and then accuse you of trying to embarrass them and spread malicious gossip in an attempt to perhaps have the senior person dismissed so you could take his job (or whatever other motivation they can think of).

Obviously the Senior person will deny it and your friend may well deny it as well given they told you in confidence and now you've embarrassed them.

Two people words against one, you end up looking like the gossip monger in front of "independent" witness and end up having to leave the organisation as word about your "unfounded" allegations gets out.

 

[i-bert]

It is your friend that is going to have to confront him. Then you can still play ignorance.

 

[Mr Jack]

How is this a moral dilemma? Your friend told you in confidence, the only moral choice is to respect that. You're choosing whether you consider friendship and morality more or less important than protecting your reputation and role in the organisation.

 

[Castiel]

How is this a moral dilemma? Your friend told you in confidence, the only moral choice is to respect that. You're choosing whether you consider friendship and morality more or less important than protecting your reputation and role in the organisation.

Does he not have the right to defend himself from spurious accusations, regardless of how he heard it. If his friend placed any kind of value on that friendship he would understand why Rainmaker feels he needs to address this and support him.

I know if I heard something untrue and malicious about a friend of mine, regardless of how I heard it, I would not place any arbitrary restrictions on my friend ability to defend himself.

 

[jackthezipper]

Can your friend not have a word with him and let him know it's not true without you having to get involved.

 

[Disco Boy]

Presumably the person who is lying about you has told more than one person, so just don't tell them who told you...

 

[Burnsy2023]

If someone tells you in confidence, that (in my opinion) should never be broken, no matter how hard it is for you to take it. You now have knowledge you'd never have had previously if it wasn't for your confidant.
Find another method for your revenge, upcommance or karma.

I'd agree with that if it wasn't a lie. That changes the ball game. That person is using you to spread their propaganda and I don't appreciate being used.

 

[Castiel]

I'd agree with that if it wasn't a lie. That changes the ball game. That person is using you to spread their propaganda and I don't appreciate being used.

That is how I feel about it. The nature of the confidence negates any obligation to it.

 

[Pawnless Endgame]

I would keep it quite this tome round. If he spreads rumours / slander again though, then confront, but tell the middle guy too to keep him in the loop.

 

[wedgie]

There are two key points here, firstly that it was a lie, and secondly your friend knew this to be the case (that's his 'out' for telling you).

I don't see what duty there is to uphold a confidence requested by someone spreading malicious lies. It's akin to uncle Bob saying 'this is our little secret'. Ok not quite, but when the request for secrecy is based purely on dishonest reasons, this negates any obligation to uphold that request imo.

 

[Pudney]

Seriously, yet again I'll say this, there is currently no proof that it was told as a malicious lie. The other person may well believe that what they said is true.

 

[Castiel]

Seriously, yet again I'll say this, there is currently no proof that it was told as a malicious lie. The other person may well believe that what they said is true.

Doesn't make it true just because someone may believe it to be. If this person believes it to be true why not simply tell Rainmaker what they had heard, rather than perpetrating a rumour mill, I would have thought that Rainmakers friend would have corrected the person and the person would not have required an oath of confidence if their intentions were entirely honest.

Even if it were true or the person thought it true, they are still guilty of malicious gossip, as they are spreading the story without actually verifying the information.

 

[wedgie]

I think that would be the best case scenario, would make the situation potentially less volatile of brought up anyway. Either way, the friend knowing these comments to be untrue justifies passing them on.

Doesn't make it true just because someone may believe it to be. If this person believes it to be true why not simply tell Rainmaker what they had heard, rather than perpetrating a rumour mill.

But I do agree with this, it sounds like the kind of thing you should really have your facts straight on before deciding whether or not it's appropriate to tell others.

 

[Pudney]

Doesn't make it true just because someone may believe it to be. If this person believes it to be true why not simply tell Rainmaker what they had heard, rather than perpetrating a rumour mill, I would have thought that Rainmakers friend would have corrected the person and the person would not have required an oath of confidence if their intentions were entirely honest.

Even if it were true or the person thought it true, they are still guilty of malicious gossip, as they are spreading the story without actually verifying the information.

Believing it to be true is inherently important, even more so as the stance being taken is one of moral high ground. If the other person sincerely believed it to be true then as far as they're aware what they're doing is not malicious and is not lying.

Failing to see that when trying to be righteous about the whole situation is failing into the same trap as the other person. In which case it would make you just as guilty of lying and being malicious.

How are we to know that this other person hasn't been contacted by another organisation that Rainmaker was a part of, and informed that he left due to the reasons stated? How do we know if what this senior person said was purely meant as a warning to the OPs friend that serious allegations have been heard and they need to be aware?

Everyone's begun a righteous indignation of the other person based purely on Rainmaker's assumption that it was malicious when there is no way yet of knowing. Give that person the benefit of the doubt. If that had happened for Rainmaker as well we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place and the world would be a happier, less conflicted place as the situation would have been nipped in the bud at the beginning.

 

[Castiel]

Believing it to be true is inherently important, even more so as the stance being taken is one of moral high ground. If the other person sincerely believed it to be true then as far as they're aware what they're doing is not malicious and is not lying.

Even if they thought it true, if the information is as damaging to a persons reputation as this appears to be, at least Rainmaker thinks so, then they are indeed being malicious in further spreading the information without verifying it's authenticity. It is gossip even if it were true and the intentionally spreading negative gossip that is potentially damaging to the subject of that gossip is malicious.

Failing to see that when trying to be righteous about the whole situation is failing into the same trap as the other person. In which case it would make you just as guilty of lying and being malicious.

Lol, what a crock. I am neither spreading any gossip about anyone or lying. To suggest it simply means you are being disingenuous at best and are guilty of attempting to misrepresent my opinion in some crazy effort to prove yourself right.

How are we to know that this other person hasn't been contacted by another organisation that Rainmaker was a part of, and informed that he left due to the reasons stated? How do we know if what this senior person said was purely meant as a warning to the OPs friend that serious allegations have been heard and they need to be aware?

If that were the case then the person has to verify the information with Rainmaker, not spread rumours and allegations among his friends. That is the height of unprofessional behaviour.

Everyone's begun a righteous indignation of the other person based purely on Rainmaker's assumption that it was malicious when there is no way yet of knowing. Give that person the benefit of the doubt. If that had happened for Rainmaker as well we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place and the world would be a happier, less conflicted place as the situation would have been nipped in the bud at the beginning.

The very act of not verifying the truthfulness of the rumour and then intentionally spreading that rumour onto a third party without speaking to or confronting Rainmaker implies an ulterior and malicious motive for doing so. The act of passing on allegations that are damaging to an individual to a third party without prior verification of those allegations or a valid reason is malicious. If there was no negative intent by the person they would have either gone to Rainmaker himself, asked his friend to verify it with Rainmaker if they felt unable to approach Rainmaker themselves or simply ignored it. They would not have called up someone, told them of the allegations and then obligated them to not pass it on to Rainmaker. You have to question the motivations of the person who would take the latter course of action as this person has done.

If that person has heard this from someone else, say in the scenario you suggested then the professional and honest way to deal with it would be to approach Rainmaker with the allegations made against him, not to begin telling his friends and then requiring them to not inform Rainmaker himself.

 

[Morgoth]

Worst "I've been kicked out of my warcraft guild" thread ever.

Ahaha, that would be amusing if true.