A king once sent his son on a diplomatic mission to another country. As he finished preparing the young man on matters of negotiation, the king said, “There is one more subject of utmost importance. While you are on this trip, under no circumstances are you to enter into any kind of bet or wager.”
Since the prince rarely gambled, his father’s warning struck him as odd. Strange though he found the admonition, he readily agreed.
The next day, as he boarded the ship that would carry him abroad, his father bid him safe journey and again cautioned him, “Remember, no matter what, you must not accept a bet.”
Perplexed by the king’s insistence, but not overly concerned, the prince repeated his assurance.
The prince’s mission went smoothly and negotiations with the foreign minister were successfully concluded. As the two of them enjoyed a final meal together, the foreign minister remarked, “You are a very skillful negotiator,” he said, “which is all the more impressive because of your handicap.”
“What handicap is that?” asked the prince, startled by the remark.
“Why, that you are a hunchback,” replied the minister.
The prince looked astonished. “I have no idea what you are talking about,” he exclaimed.
“Oh, you conceal it very well,” said the minister, “and I apologize for bringing it up, as I’m sure it is a source of embarrassment.”
“There is no embarrassment involved,” replied the prince, “since I am not a hunchback.”
“Between the two of us, there is no need to deny it,” insisted the minister. “I am quite adept at noticing details. By the way you walk and the way you carry yourself I can see clearly that you are.”
“I’m afraid you are mistaken,” replied the prince, beginning to grow angry.
“See here,” said the minister, appearing somewhat heated himself. “I pride myself on my ability to notice what others do not. Not only do I say you are a hunchback, but I will bet you a hundred thousand rubles that I am right.”
Immediately, the prince remembered his father’s warning. But certainly, his father could not have anticipated a circumstance like this one. This was not gambling. This was a sure thing.
Should the prince take the bet?
Grapple with the Gray
List two or three reasons why the prince should take the bet.
List two or three reasons why the prince should not take the bet.
Is there another alternative?
Having weighed the options, what would you do?
Gray Matters
The story concludes as follows:
The prince accepted the bet and promptly removed his shirt, revealing that he was undeniably not a hunchback.
“Now I am the one who is embarrassed,” said the minister as he counted out a large number of bills and handed them over. “I can’t understand how I could have been so mistaken. Please accept my apologies with your winnings.”
The prince returned home and, upon greeting his father, eagerly recounted the way he had profited a hundred thousand rubles.
Instead of pleasure, the king turned red with anger. “Did I not tell you to refuse any wager?” he demanded. “Let me tell you now that I bet the foreign minister half-a-million rubles that he could not get you to take a bet!”
Ethics is the foundation of trust, just as it is supported by trust. The stability of civil society depends on an implicit social contract, according to which citizens have reason to expect that their neighbors are all committed to the same underlying values of honesty and fair play, that they do not actively seek any opportunity to game the system for their own advantage.
When that trust is eroded, the foundations of society begin to disintegrate as well.
This is even more true with respect to family. On the one hand, we need to know when to take initiative, to evaluate when our instructions may not fully apply to an unexpected circumstance. On the other hand, we have to trust that instructions have been given for a reason, even if—and perhaps, especially if—we don’t fully understand the reason behind those instructions, or we think those reasons no longer apply.
In this case, the king’s insistence to exact a peculiar promise from his son without explanation was evidence that the king had concerns that he was either unable or unwilling to share with his son. By assuming that he understood the situation better than his father could have anticipated, the prince demonstrated a lack of trust which—in this case at great expense—displayed a lack of ethics.