This hypothetical situation is
about a conflict between 2 people regarding the use of money. Jack and Jill
were two working class adults who were dating each other. Both of them earned a
comfortable living as they were doing very well in the careers. Jack preferred
the ‘simple life’-he did not crave expensive branded goods nor did he see a
need for them. On the other hand, Jill preferred the ‘high life’-keeping up
with fashion trends and craving expensive branded goods. One would think that
their individual love for different lifestyles was the root of the problem-but
that was not the case. In fact, their relationship worked out very well, (as a
give and take system), as Jack loved to buy expensive goods for Jill, as what
made Jill happy also made Jack happy. And although Jill knew that Jack did not
like branded things, Jill would occasionally buy branded goods for Jack. Up to
this point there was no conflict with regards to money.
One day, both of them were taking
a stroll a when a man approached. The man was old and was wearing dirty
clothes. He asked Jack and Jill if they could spare him some change as he had
not eaten anything for a few days as he had no money. Jack felt pity for the
man, took out five dollars and gave it to him and the man went away thanking
Jack. This was when the problem started. Jill was shocked that Jack actually
gave the man money. So Jill confronted Jack, asking him why he did what did. Jack
said that he felt pity and that something had pinched at his conscience. Jill
said that the man could have been lying and that giving the man money was a wasted
of money. Jack said that he understood that the man could have been lying, but said
that he did what he did in order to have a clear conscience in the event the man
was telling the truth. He told Jill that it was weighing between ‘the man
telling the truth but not helping him’ verses, ‘the man telling a lie and helping
him’. Jack felt that he rather been cheated of five dollars then to not help a
person who truly is in need. Jill did not understand Jack and felt that what
Jack did was very stupid. The argument carried on until Jack and Jill was so
frustrated with each other that Jack called Jill a ‘woman with no conscience’
and Jill called Jack ‘a stupid man’. The name calling caused emotional hurt,
and this conflict took a toll on their relationship. So what would have been
the best way to avoid the conflict?
I empathize with both of them as I
understand where they are coming from. In my opinion, one possible way to avoid
this conflict would be that instead of giving the man five dollars, which is actually
quite a bit, Jack could have given a lesser amount, maybe like a dollar. This might
have seemed ‘less wasteful’ to Jill, and Jack would still feel that he helped someone,
(in a way they reach a compromise). Hopefully this would avoid the conflict in
the first place.
What are the other possible ways
to avoid this conflict totally?
Hello Elisha!
ReplyDeleteWow. Interesting story. Personally i think Jill is extremely petty and also pretty stingy for someone who likes branded goods,and even gifts them to Jack. Really, whether the man was lying or not should not even have been that big of an issue. Certainly not worth fighting over. She seriously blew things out of proportion. Why doubt a poor man who says and looks like he really needs help? And then fight about it?
All that aside, I don't think Jack should do things just to please Jill, or just to avoid conflict. He should take a stand and not let Jill dictate what his actions. If he wants to donate $5, he should donate $5. Instead of avoiding it, I believe it is something they should both have a long,mature conversation about. Especially Jill. Haha. Hey if they are seeing each other, they should accept each other for who they are. Even Jack should should accept Jill's petty nature.
He should have cooled down instead of calling Jill names(especially since she's rather petty and would blow that out of proportion too). They both should have cooled down,collected their thoughts and if Jill still feels the need to, she could have approached her issue with Jack's actions in a different way. Maybe instead of sounding so accusing, she should have said instead that she feels concerned for Jack,fearing that he is could be an easy target for people who might want to cheat him because of his good nature. And she should not have accused the poor man either. Maybe if she has experienced cheats, she could relate her experience to Jack, warn him and tell him that sometimes people can be dishonest. She should not, however, tell Jack what he can or cannot do,or should or should not do. Jack should still be given the liberty to choose his actions, or whether he wants to give a dollar or five.
I think that would have went down better with Jack. And hence, no more name calling putting a strain on their happy relationship. Just by using a different approach, they could have avoided the drama altogether! By talking things out instead of Jill yapping, they could have also worked towards understanding each other better, which is always great for a relationship between anyone,friends,people you are dating etc.
Jack not taking a stand and not donating $5 when he wanted to would make things worse,in my opinion. Jack's unhappiness with the way Jill is 'forcing' him to behave could build up within him and cause him to resent Jill with each passing day or time Jill's presence causes him to reserve his ways.
So yes, definitely definitely take stand, Jill please be more mature about it, and exceedingly unneccessary conflicts such as this can be avoided. So by NOT avoiding it they could have avoided it, or even an even bigger conflict down the road, if Jack had allowed Jill to change his habits.
Diana
In my opinion, Jill should be more understanding and not be too hard on Jack for helping others. I personally believe that helping others truly take courage and willingness to give, which not everyone is able to do easily, including myself. Of course, with so many cases of scams and embezzlement of money donated to charities in the news, it is no doubt that we would naturally think twice before giving donations now, whether to individuals like in the case of this scenario, or to charitable organisations. However, this should not diminish the altruistic side of us, although this could be subject to individual's financial ability and other factors as well. In short, I feel that if given the opportunity to help others, we should seize it but bearing in mind to provide help rationally and to the best of our ability without causing too much distress to ourselves and those around us, including our loved ones.
ReplyDeleteBoth Diana and Ee have said it all. Your blog post is well-written but you could have evaluated the whole conflict a little more rather than to just right it off to the amount of money given. Perhaps a deeper analysis of Jack's and Jill's personalities would have added depth to the post.
ReplyDelete