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.