Question: I’m divorced and have quite a bit of money. Several years ago I was involved with a guy who, once he learned of my wealth, used me as his personal ATM. Recently I started seeing someone new, and I think I could get serious about him. Given past experience, I’m thinking it might be better not to tell him about my money. Would that be ethical, or is there a point at which I have to speak up?

Answer: If you’re becoming seriously involved with this man, you need to tell him. After all, you’d expect him to be forthcoming about his having five kids or having been addicted to painkillers, right? Well, he surely expects you to trust him with comparably important information, and justifiably so. Moreover, if you end up in a committed relationship, your resources are going to play a major role in your life together. Hence you need to be certain they don’t present a problem. This means confirming not only that he’s more honorable than your last guy, but also that he’s not threatened by your wealth. Keeping mum prevents you from getting a true assessment of your partner.

We understand that being exploited by Mr. Wrong has left you leery of revealing your resources. But believe us, the problem in that situation was his character, not your money. Your judgment surely has improved by virtue of that experience, and there are much better men around than that guy. We hope the man you’re seeing now is one of them. But you won’t know until you tell him about your wealth and see what effect it has on him and on your relationship.

Questions? Email Money Magazine’s ethicists – authors of “Isn’t It Their Turn to Pick Up the Check?” (Free Press) – at FlemingandSchwarz@right-thing.net.

Question: When my grandmother died, she left most of her beautiful antiques to me. Now Mom wants me to share these with her sister’s two daughters. But neither of my cousins had anything to do with my grandmother for at least 10 years before her death, because my aunt and my grandmother were estranged. Mom says I need to do this to keep peace in the family. Must I? I know my cousins will just sell everything I give them.

Answer: An admirable goal, peace in the family, and you’re certainly obligated to take your mother’s request seriously. What you’re not obligated to do, however, is to suspend your own judgment of the reasonableness – or likely effectiveness – of what she’s proposing. And you should certainly take into account what your grandmother would have thought of the deal. It’s one thing if your mother is trying to make up for what was your grandmother’s unfair treatment of your aunt, say, and another if your mother is simply succumbing to her sister’s and nieces’ whining or bullying.

Then too, nothing says you can’t meet your mother’s request part way. For example, you might give each of your cousins just a single antique – ones you believe they might actually enjoy keeping. Another possibility: Specify in your will that some of the antiques go to your cousins or their children, thus ensuring that their “line” ultimately shares in these lovely mementos of your grandmother’s life. Finally, you wouldn’t be wrong to discuss with your mother whether there aren’t some things she inherited from your grandmother that could serve the same diplomatic purpose with her sister’s family as the antiques she’s asked you to part with.

Questions? Email Money Magazine’s ethicists – authors of “Isn’t It Their Turn to Pick Up the Check?” (Free Press) – at FlemingandSchwarz@right-thing.net.

Question: I’m a research assistant at a large consulting firm. Recently I noticed a significant error in a report prepared by a co-worker who’s always acting superior to me. It’s not my job to proof this report, so I’ve said nothing. The report’s about to go out, and I hope Julie gets in trouble. My friends are appalled, but I don’t think I owe it to this woman to bail her out. Am I right?

Answer: When it comes to having to save (or not save) a colleague from a trip to the woodshed, you ordinarily have a bit of leeway. The problem in this situation is that your silence punishes one of two innocent bystanders: the company you work for or its client. If the client discovers the error, it may revise its opinion of your employer and take its business elsewhere. And if the client doesn’t notice, it could be harmed by fallout from the mistake.

While it may not be your job to proof the report, you still have an obligation as an employee to speak up when you see something’s wrong. If you worked in an operating room and Julie were about to amputate the wrong leg, would you remain silent? Just because the consequences in your situation are less obvious doesn’t make them any less real.

One way or another you must notify the project manager of the error before the report goes out. So tell the manager and become a candidate for Employee of the Month, tell the whole office and embarrass your nemesis, or alert Julie to the problem and hope her attitude toward you changes - whatever you like, as long as it gets the error corrected.

Questions? Email Money Magazine’s ethicists – authors of “Isn’t It Their Turn to Pick Up the Check?” (Free Press) – at FlemingandSchwarz@right-thing.net.

Question: For five years I worked for my sister’s husband Jeff at the market research firm he owns. A year after I quit, I started a research firm of my own. I’ve abided by the terms of my contract with Jeff, but my whole family is mad at me because now I’m competing with Jeff for business. Are they right? Just because he once gave me a job, am I obligated to get this guy’s approval for every move I make?

Answer: That depends. If Jeff did you a favor by hiring you - if you got the job because you’re family - then competing with him now is an act of betrayal. In accepting a favor of that magnitude, you incurred an obligation to treat Jeff as more than an employer with whom your relationship was arm’s length. Of course he has no right to oversee your career, but he has good reason to expect you not to start a competing enterprise.

On the other hand, if Jeff hired you simply because he valued you as an employee, he’s on thin ice insisting you have obligations that extend beyond the employment contract you signed. Had he expected you to never compete with him, he should have specified that in the contract. In short, if your hiring was strictly business and you’re playing by the rules Jeff spelled out, his outrage is unwarranted.

So what was it, personal or business? Therein lies one answer to your question. Either way, though, you’ve shown a remarkable lack of family loyalty in starting a business aimed at taking customers from your brother-in-law and bread off your sister’s family’s table. Any way you slice it, that’s a hostile act.

Questions? Email Money Magazine’s ethicists – authors of “Isn’t It Their Turn to Pick Up the Check?” (Free Press) – at FlemingandSchwarz@right-thing.net.

Question: My mother, a widow in her early sixties, works in the administrative offices of a big conservation organization. While her pay is okay, she makes very large contributions to the nonprofit she works for. In return, Mom is duly recognized. But in the meantime she has only a small nest egg, and it’s not getting any bigger. Aren’t the development people where she works, who understand that her means are limited, wrong to solicit and accept so much of her money?

Answer: Absolutely. Soliciting money from someone when you know they can’t afford it is wrong. Period. It makes no difference whether you’re a snake-oil salesman peddling an overpriced piece of Florida swampland or a fund raiser for an environmental organization trying to preserve the same swamp. When you know that the deal you’re pushing runs counter to the interests of the person you’re pushing it on, you’re behaving unethically.

But as dishonorably as the development staff is acting, the buck stops with your mother. She’s the one making the decision to give. And just because her money is going to a good cause doesn’t change the fact that she’s failing to adequately save for retirement. By allocating her income in this way, she’s not being fair to the relatives who may one day be called upon to bail her out.

So unless you or another relative is prepared to supplement her nest egg, you should talk candidly with her about the potential long-term effects of such generosity. Emphasize that while you understand her concern for the future of the planet, you also want to make sure she’s paying attention to the future of her finances.

Questions? Email Money Magazine’s ethicists – authors of “Isn’t It Their Turn to Pick Up the Check?” (Free Press) – at FlemingandSchwarz@right-thing.net.

Question: I hate to say it, but my son-in-law is no good. Three nights a week he goes out with his buddies, leaving Melissa at home with their toddler. Recently, they asked my husband and me to help them with the down payment on a house. While we would like to help our daughter, we’re sure her marriage will end in divorce, and we would hate to see our hard-earned cash winding up in Josh’s pocket. What should we do?

Our answer: Leave your checkbook in the drawer.

While sabotaging your daughter’s marriage would of course be wrong, being realistic about the likelihood that it will succeed is not. If there is a good chance that this marriage is not going to last, pouring your money into the couple’s joint assets is a bad idea. Not only do you risk having made a very large gift to your selfish son-in-law, but whatever you give them now means you’ll have that much less available with which to assist Melissa should she and Josh split up.

More generally, while helping an adult child with the down payment on a home is a wonderful thing to do, it’s not always the right thing, and it’s by no means an obligation of parenthood. Moreover, under no circumstances are you obligated to give money to a son-in-law you don’t like, especially one whose character concerns you. Since Melissa wants to make this large investment with Josh, that is a decision you must honor. But it is not one you’re required to bankroll. We only hope your daughter’s not imagining that, though having a baby hasn’t kept her husband home at night, having a mortgage will.

Questions? Email Money Magazine’s ethicists – authors of “Isn’t It Their Turn to Pick Up the Check?” (Free Press) – at FlemingandSchwarz@right-thing.net.

Question:  When a friend and I had dinner at a nice restaurant recently, the food was good but the service was terrible.  The waiter got both of our orders wrong, was openly contemptuous of the wine we selected, ignored us for long stretches of time, and was horribly rude every time he did appear.  I wanted to leave the guy next to nothing, but my friend insisted on tipping him close to 15 percent.  Was she right, or was I?

Our answer:  That’ll teach you not to decline the $75 wine your waiter recommends. 

Seriously, we’re with you.  There’s no excuse for the behavior you describe, and in your shoes we would have left the guy a buck - just enough to let him know we hadn’t forgotten him. 

We assume your friend would argue that tipping is an obligation, not an option, and that stiffing a waiter is akin to an employer failing to pay an employee.  But she’s wrong.  Being in a job where tips are the norm doesn’t protect you from the economic consequences of failing to provide what customers have every right to expect.  Taxi drivers who ignore their passengers’ directions and drive like maniacs don’t deserve tips.  Neither do waiters who can’t bother to deliver competent and courteous service.

Given that your meal was so unpleasant, you should have spoken to the manager and insisted that your bill be reduced.  But we can understand why you might not have wanted to end dinner with a confrontation.  Either way, though, your friend was wrong to insist on that tip.  Her well-intentioned but misguided sense of duty only encourages waiters like yours to continue to be contemptuous of their customers.

Questions? Email Money Magazine’s ethicists – authors of the upcoming book “Isn’t It Their Turn to Pick Up the Check?” (Free Press) – at FlemingandSchwarz@right-thing.net.

Question: Is there anything wrong with asking family members to give me money for my birthday instead of sweaters I don’t care for, food I don’t want and gift cards to stores where I don’t shop? I don’t mean to sound unappreciative, but at my age (35), I’d really rather just have the money and buy things I like.

Our answer: As that eminent ethicist Mick Jagger once observed, you can’t always get what you want.

Unless, say, you plan to ask your doting grandmother who’s living on Social Security to write you a four-digit check, there’s nothing unethical about telling someone you prefer money over any other gift. But that still doesn’t make it a nice thing to do.

You appear to believe the chief function of a gift is to provide you with what you want most. Often, however, gifts are intended mainly to express affection, to honor the relationship the gift giver has with you and to share the gift giver’s taste. While the folks who give you presents no doubt hope to please you, it’s unlikely they think of the occasion as a great opportunity to transfer money from their bank account to yours. What’s more, they probably realize that in order not to disappoint the recipient, checks need to be for a greater amount than they’d ordinarily spend on a gift or even a gift card.

Our advice? You’re an adult, not a kid saving for college or a new computer. So unless someone very close specifically asks you what’s on your wish list, don’t announce that what you’re looking for is cold, hard cash. After all, you don’t want your relatives to think you have a cold, hard heart.

Questions? Email Money Magazine’s ethicists – authors of the upcoming book “Isn’t It Their Turn to Pick Up the Check?” (Free Press) – at FlemingandSchwarz@right-thing.net.

Question: I recently learned that the owner of the gym I go to is a big contributor to a presidential candidate I despise. I hate the thought of my money going to this opportunist’s campaign. But the gym is the only one in 25 miles with the equipment I need to rehabilitate my shoulder. What should I do? I see too little of my family as it is to spend an extra hour in my car whenever I need to exercise.

Our Answer: There’s no law of ethics requiring you to boycott enterprises owned by people whose politics you disagree with. But given your strong feelings, it’s perfectly reasonable to consider quitting as a symbolic gesture, even if the loss of your one membership doesn’t have much impact on the contributions made by the owner.

Consider the old joke: A guy says, “Doctor, my arm hurts in two places,” and the doctor says, “So don’t go to those places.” In a similar vein, if you can’t stand the thought of a portion of your membership fee ending up in the war chest of someone you abhor, you shouldn’t give the gym your business.

What you can’t do is have it both ways. You can’t have a gold star for wanting to shun the place and a pass that allows you to go there anyway. Instead you have to choose between two equally honorable options: standing by your politics or having more time with your family.

We can’t tell you how to make this trade-off any more than we can tell you how much to contribute to the candidate you do support. All we can suggest is that if you do decide to change gyms, you try out the next closest one, and the commute that goes with it, before canceling your current membership.

Questions? Email Money Magazine’s ethicists – authors of the upcoming book “Isn’t It Their Turn to Pick Up the Check?” (Free Press) – at FlemingandSchwarz@right-thing.net.

Question: When I needed money to get my restaurant started, my good friend Dave lent me $12,000 with the proviso that I hire his son, who hopes to be a chef someday.  The kid’s been working in the kitchen for three months now, and he’s all thumbs.  Is there anything wrong with firing Ryan, or am I stuck with him until I pay off the loan, which won’t be for another year?

Our answer: A deal is a deal.  So whether you’re stuck with Ryan hinges on exactly what the deal was you struck with his father.  If, in return for the twelve grand, you promised to give Dave’s son a try-out in your kitchen, then you’re free to tell the Platebreak Kid to turn in his toque. 

But if you effectively promised to give Ryan the opportunity to learn his craft - and it sure sounds as if that’s why Dave lent you the money - then the fact that the kid’s a disaster doesn’t get you off the hook. 

Were Ryan stealing from you, of course you could fire him.  Were he lazy and disrespectful, you’d be within bounds to insist that he shape up or leave.  But being a klutz isn’t sufficient grounds for letting Ryan go - not if Dave believed the loan guaranteed an apprenticeship for his son.

And what if you and Dave never discussed the exact terms of Ryan’s employment?  In that case, try to err on the side of keeping the kid.  After all, your friend did you a big favor.  You should try to do him one in return.

Questions? Email Money Magazine’s ethicists – authors of the upcoming book “Isn’t It Their Turn to Pick Up the Check?” (Free Press) – at FlemingandSchwarz@right-thing.net.