My husband is the middle of five siblings. The three oldest were high achievers who earned advanced degrees and are now comfortably retired, living far from their hometown. The fourth, a brother, has struggled all his life. After four years in the Army, he drifted between unemployment and low-paying jobs, never able to support himself. His parents covered his expenses or let him live with them, even paying for his car while he worked as a pizza-delivery driver. He also developed substance-abuse problems.
After my husband’s father died, the brother stayed in the family home, supposedly caring for their mother but, in fact, exploiting her. He drained her accounts to feed his habit and neglected her care, and after her death he was convicted of elder abuse — something his out-of-town siblings hadn’t realized was happening. Before she died, their mother begged them not to let him be homeless.
Because the brother couldn’t maintain the house, the siblings sold it and split the proceeds. With his share, they bought him a mobile home and placed funds in a protected account, which covered rent and utilities for nearly 10 years until the money ran out. They eventually transferred the bills into his name and explained how to manage them.
He rarely communicates with the family, except when he’s in trouble. Once on his own, chaos followed. He claimed that his pizza-delivery job was enough to live on, but he missed rent, faced eviction and squandered money on predatory car loans and endless repairs. Last year, his siblings discovered that his car had been repossessed and his water had been shut off for six months. His trailer was collapsing from a leaking roof, and garbage was piled everywhere. Yet he had never asked for help. They stepped in, restored utilities, reclaimed his car, cleaned his trailer and signed him up for Social Security. But he quickly burned through a lump-sum back-pay benefit (he said his account was hacked, though he was more likely scammed). Soon after, he fell behind again, and his Social Security is now being garnished by the I.R.S.
The mobile-home park wants him out for unpaid rent and unsafe conditions. He’s clearly mentally ill, but perhaps not impaired enough for a sibling to secure guardianship. My husband and his siblings want to honor their mother’s plea to keep him housed, but contributing to his rent payments and repairing his trailer isn’t financially sustainable for them, and none of them want to take him in because he’s horrible to live with. Social services might help, but he resists cooperation and can’t manage on his own.
So they wonder: At what point do they stop trying? Are they obliged to sustain someone who refuses to sustain himself? Do they owe him the effort of seeking guardianship, or is that more than can reasonably be asked? — Name Withheld
From the Ethicist:
People are entitled to manage their own lives — if they’re capable of doing so. But it can be hard to draw a line between “managing badly” and “not being able to manage at all.” This brother-in-law can work, at least sporadically, but he cannot handle money, sustain housing or ask for help when he needs it. Add addiction into the mix, and his ability to run his own life is gravely compromised.
That naturally raises the question of guardianship, putting someone else in charge of his life. But courts, rightly, have a high bar for establishing a guardianship (or conservatorship), and in any case, it wouldn’t be a solution to the problem so much as full ownership of the problem. To be someone’s guardian is like having a child in your care. A guardian typically must oversee a ward’s housing, medical care, finances, even emotional well-being, and report regularly to a court. It’s the sort of time-consuming, intrusive, emotionally draining commitment none of your in-laws should be expected to take on.
There are still things this man’s siblings can do. They can get together to pay his rent and keep him housed, help him apply for benefits, steer him toward treatment programs, set up connections with community resources. These don’t depend on him exercising sound judgment, and they could prevent the very worst outcomes. But they can’t guarantee stability, because he may refuse assistance or sabotage it.
That leads to the looming ethical question: How much is enough? Clearly, the family isn’t going to watch him self-destruct with indifference. But they don’t have to devote their lives to a guardianship-like role that the legal system recognizes as extraordinary and rescue him endlessly from the consequences of his choices. They have already gone further than many families would. Beyond steering him toward systems of care and making sure he isn’t simply abandoned, the siblings must recognize that the life he insists on leading — or cannot help leading — is his own. They can’t be obligated to accomplish the impossible; in the philosophical saw, “ought implies can.”
Thoughts? If you would like to share a response to today’s dilemma with the Ethicist and other subscribers in the next newsletter, fill out this form.
Readers Respond
The previous question was from a volunteer at a local historical society who suspects that a high school student who won its annual essay contest did so with the help of A.I. She wrote:
“I volunteer with our local historical society, which awards a $1,000 scholarship each year to two high school students who submit essays about a meaningful experience with a historical site. This year, our committee noticed a huge improvement in the quality of the students’ essays, and only after announcing the winners did we realize that one of them, along with other students, had almost certainly used artificial intelligence. What to do? I think our teacher liaison should be told, because A.I. is such a challenge for schools. I also feel that this winner should be confronted. If we are right, that might lead her to confess her dishonesty and return the award. — Name Withheld”
In his response, the Ethicist noted:
“The rise of A.I. chatbots — and now Microsoft Word’s Copilot feature — is making it harder to use essays to assess candidates for scholarships, grades and jobs. In fact, because much of the workplace will soon involve prompting machines and editing their output, traditional essay writing may no longer be seen as an essential skill. One big worry about all this is that researching and drafting a paper on their own has long been one of the ways students actually learn material and form their own views about it. Your society’s prize is no doubt meant to reward that process, not just a polished final product. And yet unless your historical society explicitly barred A.I. use, the winner might not have thought she was doing anything wrong.
(Reread the full question and answer here.)
⬥
As a former teacher, I am only too aware of how critical it is to outline expectations before sending students off to complete assignments. It is important to establish standards and identify unacceptable practices, particularly that of taking credit for work that is not original. In addition to providing such direction, I would consider including a declaration at the end of any composition that requires the individual under whose name the work is being submitted to assure that all work is original (and that should be clearly defined). Should anyone not follow such guidelines, that person then deserves the resulting consequences. — Gail
⬥
This letter left me with more questions than answers. What made the letter writer think one of the winners “almost certainly” used A.I., and why did this certainty happen only after the winners were announced? Additionally, why does a “huge improvement in quality” automatically raise suspicion, especially when A.I. has been available for several years now? Without a better grasp of the evidence, I don’t think any action can be safely recommended, let alone a confrontation. Imagine if the winner did not use A.I. but was pressured to “confess her dishonesty.” — Zane
⬥
I agree that if the rules did not ban A.I., the winner did not break any rules. You cannot now disqualify the winner for breaking a rule you should have had but didn’t. And second, there is a culture gap here. I am 75 years old and audit university classes and see what is going on with A.I. The younger generation, rightly or wrongly, sees A.I. as just another tool, like spelling and grammar checkers. If you want them to follow your rules, tell them what the rules are. — Thomas
⬥
The Ethicist identified the situation as a wake-up call to perhaps reform the system. But also for society and its agents, like this group, to realize that A.I. is becoming part of the knowledge economy. It is society that must change, rather than be aghast when the tools available are employed. — Robert
Kwame Anthony Appiah is The New York Times Magazine’s Ethicist columnist and teaches philosophy at N.Y.U. To submit a query, send an email to [email protected].
The post My Brother-in-Law Can’t Care for Himself. Do His Siblings Have to Bail Him Out? appeared first on New York Times.
