Okay. The EJ guy (or gal) should face the choice of being burned at the stake or being drawn and quartered. As for the giver, 50 lashes with the whip for sloppy estate planning. Are you satisfied now?arcticpineapplecorp. wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 6:10 pmthese examples are one's where people were helped, not harmed. nobody was harmed by this deceipt. but the OP will be harmed if the EJ guy takes an action to stop the future gifts being received.nedsaid wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 5:25 pm Not to wax theological here but we live in a fallen world with all kinds of moral imperfections. Everyone has their own ideas where the ethical and moral line is in their lives but if I insisted that all the companies that I did business with acted 100% in accordance with my standards, it would be hard to do business anywhere. There are ethical and moral dilemmas.
The Catholic Church issued a lot of Baptismal Certificates to Jewish people during World War II. It is really a sophisticated form of lying and deceit, Jewish people pretending to be Catholics but the actions saved many thousands if not hundreds of thousands of lives. I could say, I don't want anything to do with an organization that practices lying and deception but when you consider the alternative was Auschwitz for these people I am glad in this case that the rules were bent. If the moral philosophers had won the day and if the Church decided that lying and deceit were unacceptable under any circumstances then I suppose people could have felt good about strict adherence to moral principles but many thousands more people would have died.
It was also against the law to harbor people who were being sought for arrest by the authorities but people of all persuasions decided that it was better to obey a higher law and save lives. Should those who harbored people being sought for arrest have been reported themselves? Did the person who turned in the Frank family to the authorities feel good about sending them to their deaths?
the EJ guy by your examples above is the Nazi, not the Church. You sure you want to make that argument?
I'm glad for those who engage in civil disobedience when people's freedoms, liberties and life is under harm.
The EJ guy is not engaging in any act of civil disobedience.
He's going against his ethical duty to his client.
not sure how you can argue with that.
sure life is complicated and nuanced.
This situation really isn't. The EJ guy is in the wrong if he breaks privacy and confidentiality. Not sure how you can actually defend that. Nor why you'd want to.
I am trying to make a broader point with my examples, the analogies that I am using don't perfectly fit the situation. What I am saying is pick your battles carefully and that there are moral dilemmas that exist in life. This is a battle that the original poster could take on, the costs would be high and the benefits pretty low. Even if he "won", not sure what would be gained here, there is such a thing as a Pyrrhic victory.
What the Original Poster could do is talk to the Advisor again and remind him or her of the duties to maintain confidentiality and leave it at that. This is not the stuff of Bernie Madoff. I did read in other threads that the Edward Jones Advisor is a Certified Financial Planner, so he or she is subject to the confidentiality rules that Financial Planners must abide by.
I learned is that this is happening in a small town, and yes there are additional pitfalls with that. I am reminded that my folks wouldn't have an account with a certain local bank because things didn't always stay secret. In later years, they did establish an account there I suppose their concerns had subsided.
Don't see huge issues here, in other threads it looked like the Original Poster was well on their way to a solution.
I think I am done here. Thank you.