Avram,
“OUR DISCUSSION OF THE TWO BROTHERS WAS NEITHER RATIONAL NOR STABLE.”
“but the point is 100% valid and reasonable, and if you want people to accept or consider your “twisted” philosophy, it would do you well to address it.”
Agreed, it definitely hit a good point, and he might be correct in a way. As in theory it could occur and the answer might very well be, that the good kid will have to forfeit his $20 breakfast. Of course it all depends on the “good kid” as well. i.e. if the fact that he didn’t get his breakfast is by no way effecting anything in the long run, then unfortunately, he will have to sacrifice some of his comforts to save his emotionally disturbed brother.
Let’s look at it from a diff approach, if the “bad brother” would be ‘physically’ ill and needs extra care etc. and the well brother needs the exact above scenario – is the above excuse legit? No doubt, you can absolutely tell him: “sorry your breakfast money went toward your brother’s meds etc”.
Nevertheless, we of course identify easily with physical cases than emotional, but in theory there might be no diff.
Now of course each and every case is different and needs to be guided and diagnosed properly, if that is indeed the case of the “bad” kid.