The Right Thing: 2026

Sunday, March 29, 2026

How loyal must a long-term friend be?

At what point does kindness become too much to sustain?

That’s a question facing a long-time reader we’re calling Elvis.

For more than 50 years, Elvis has stayed in touch with a woman he met while serving in the military overseas. They were briefly romantic, but their relationship quickly became a long-distance friendship sustained mostly by monthly phone calls.

Elvis writes that the woman has endured a lifetime of hardship. She has shared those hardships with him for decades. She tells Elvis he is her only friend.

Elvis has tried to be supportive. He helped her navigate the immigration process after she moved to the United States. But the calls, he says, have always been emotionally draining, and lately have become more difficult, partly because his hearing is not what it once was, and he finds it harder to understand her. Their most recent conversation left him exhausted.

He worries that ending contact would devastate her. But he wonders whether continuing the relationship indefinitely—when every conversation leaves him distressed—is the right thing to do.

Longstanding relationships often carry a sense of moral obligation. When we’ve been present for someone through difficult times, it can feel wrong to step back later, especially if that person appears to depend on us. Loyalty and compassion matter.

But so do limits.

Doing the right thing does not require someone to endure endless emotional strain. Elvis has a responsibility for his own well-being. Since helping his friend causes persistent distress, it’s reasonable for him to reconsider if or how he offers help.

But Elvis does not need to limit himself to either continuing the relationship exactly as it was or to abruptly cut off contact.

Perhaps Elvis can try to reshape the relationship in ways that make it sustainable. He might shorten conversations, speak less frequently, or be candid with her that the long phone calls have become tiring and difficult because of his hearing problems. He can be clear but kind in trying to transform their relationship.

He might also encourage his friend to reach out to others. Community groups, neighbors or local activities might offer more support than any one person can be expected to provide.

Continuing a relationship while quietly resenting it rarely helps either party. Resentment tends to erode goodwill and makes conversations feel like obligations rather than acts of kindness.

Elvis has already demonstrated remarkable generosity. Maintaining contact with someone for more than six decades — long after the original circumstances of the relationship changed — is no small thing.

Adjusting the terms of that relationship now would not erase the care he has shown. Instead, it may allow him to remain present in a way that respects both his friend and himself.

Recognizing our own limits can be as much of a virtue as compassion for someone else.

The right thing may lie somewhere between abandoning his friend and sacrificing his own peace of mind forever. Finding a place where kindness and self-care can coexist is not a failure. It just might allow Elvis to continue to be the generous person he has shown himself to be.

Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Simple Art of Business Etiquette: How to Rise to the Top by Playing Nice, is a senior lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at Harvard's Kennedy School. He is also the administrator of www.jeffreyseglin.com, a blog focused on ethical issues.

Do you have ethical questions that you need to have answered? Send them to jeffreyseglin@gmail.com.

Follow him on Twitter @jseglin.

Sunday, March 22, 2026

Should consumers be outraged at paying more for less?

Should consumers who eat more at an all-you-can-eat buffet or those who wear a larger size piece of clothing be expected to have to pay more than those who eat less and wear smaller sizes?

Variations on these two questions continue to arrive in emails from readers. They’re also on online discussion boards where someone is incensed that someone is getting more for the same price.

In all cases, it’s up to the retail establishment or restaurant to be clear with prospective customers about the rules of engagement.

Straying from the food or clothing examples for a moment, let’s look at buying a piece of furniture online. Often, you might find a chest of drawers for sale and see a price for it that seems attractive. The item also comes in different finishes and colors. When you click on the finish or color you want, you notice the item is several dollars more expensive. No reason is given for the price variation. It could be based on consumer demand. Perhaps the finish you want costs more to apply. Maybe it’s simply the whim of the retailer. Even if it was the lower price that drew your interest, as long as the retailer is clear about price when you choose the particular item in the style you want, that retailer has done nothing wrong. Hidden prices that are charged after the fact are bad. Upfront prices that a retailer makes known from the outset are fair game.

For all-you-can-eat buffets, a similar rule applies. As long as the restaurant is clear on the rules of the buffet, there’s no harm done – aside from perhaps the food consumed. Some establishments place a time limit on their all-you-can-eat buffet and insist that you can only partake for a set number of hours. Again, that might not seem like it’s really “all-you-can-eat” but as long as the restaurant makes those rules clear to the diners from the outset, it’s done nothing wrong. That some people can eat more at one of these buffets than others has more to do with appetite than fairness. If you’re someone who doesn’t like to eat a lot of food in one sitting, that should be your guide in deciding whether these buffets are really a bargain.

The clothing size conundrum likely falls more into the camp of a retailer deciding that the extra money it costs for materials for a sweater or other garment is nothing compared to the labor and overhead that goes into making and stocking all items. Typically, it costs more to make the clothes than it does to buy the material to make them. Or at least that’s the common argument made. But again, as long as the retailer is clear on its pricing from the outset, there’s no deception involved. Sure, some items might be overpriced for all sizes offered, but consumers have the capacity to decide when something simply costs too much for the perceived value.

In all cases, the right thing is for anyone selling something to be as clear as possible in how much the item will cost the consumer. Consumers do the right thing by deciding how much they are willing to pay for something or when they simply should walk away.

Sunday, March 15, 2026

Does getting our name wrong warrant anger?

Is it wrong to get angry when someone gets our name wrong?

On June 2, 1969, while sitting in folding chairs in front of John Hill School in Boonton, New Jersey, at an assembly along with my seventh-grade classmates, I received an honorable mention for an essay I wrote for the American Legion safety essay contest. New Jersey’s America Legion has been running the contest for more than 80 years. I didn’t win the local branch’s contest. That honor went, as I recall, to Melanie Cox, a classmate. But getting honorable mention felt like a big deal, especially since it was announced in front of my whole class and I received an official certificate.

They spelled my name wrong on the certificate.

On it, in all capital letters is typed “Jeffrey Siglin.” Close enough, I guess, so my classmates would know it was meant to be “Jeffrey Seglin,” but incorrect nonetheless.

I was disappointed as were my parents, but we didn’t say anything. As I recall, while we’d been told about the essay and the topic ahead of time, we wrote the essays while sitting as a class in the school’s auditorium, so it wasn’t as if I’d spent days researching and writing it.

I didn’t want my parents to make a big deal over the misspelling. Perhaps it was enough to know that I received the certificate. More likely, as a 12-year-old, I didn’t want to anger whoever it was we might have to tell about their mistake.

If the same mistake happened now that I am an adult (and it has), I don’t hesitate to correct whatever it is my name happens to be misspelled on. I don’t get upset if they use “Jeff” instead of “Jeffrey” on something without asking which I prefer, but if they spell my first or last name wrong, I ask them to correct it.

But I don’t get angry about the error. My assumption is that while they didn’t take the time to check the facts and get the spelling right or that they simply made a typographical error, they didn’t do it with any malice intended. Exuding ire over the mistake as if it’s a deliberate slight accomplishes nothing other than to make them feel worse about their error or make me look churlish, something I try to avoid when possible.

Nevertheless, the right thing to do when someone gets our names or personal information wrong is to correct them, but to try to do so in a way that doesn’t suggest they are an evil human being for making the mistake.

Today, I treasure the American Legion certificate for a different reason than being acknowledged in front of my classmates. I use it to remind myself of the importance of humility. No matter how hard we work or how much effort we put into some task, none of us is so important that someone won’t get our name wrong from time to time. And the world won’t end.

Today, the certificate is framed and up on my office wall along with a framed thank you letter from the White House mistakenly printed upside down on White House stationery. But on the latter, they spelled my name correctly.

Sunday, March 08, 2026

Is it wrong to make campaign contributions to someone who doesn’t represent you?

Should we be allowed to contribute money to a political candidate for whom we are not a constituent?

That was the question posed to me recently by M.F., a reader from California. M.F. wanted to know if I considered it ethical to make such contributions, such as donating to a U.S. senator’s campaign when one is not a resident of that state.

M.F. does not indicate why she is asking or if she takes issue with U.S. citizens making contributions to candidates for whom they can’t vote. She may be OK with it. She might believe that it should be considered wrong for someone to donate money and possibly try to influence the election in a jurisdiction outside of where they vote.

Currently, it is not illegal for any individual to donate to someone running for office in a jurisdiction outside of where that individual is registered to vote as long as the individual is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident and as long as they don’t exceed any donation contribution limits. (For federal elections such as the hypothetical U.S. Senate race that M.F. raises, those contribution limits are laid out by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) here: https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/contribution-limits/.

Some might make the argument that it’s wrong for non-constituents to stick their noses into another state’s politics. But others might argue that while they can’t vote for that out-of-state candidate, they can show support for someone who might have influence over national policies that ultimately affect all citizens.

While it might be legal to donate to candidates they cannot vote for, contributors shouldn’t expect that their donations will or should in any way shift that candidate’s responsibility to represent the voters who might put them into office. Contributing to a candidate because you believe they might do a good job governing wherever they happen to be governing is OK. Contributing to a candidate to try to buy influence crosses ethical and legal lines, but that’s true whether you are a constituent or not.

There could be occasions when a good deal of money from individual contributors for an election flows in from a particular region outside of a candidate’s prospective jurisdiction. This may raise flags that outsiders may be exerting undue influence where they have no business doing so. The right thing for candidates to do is to make sure they know where the money is coming from and reject money from those whose views they know to be abhorrent.

If you’re going to contribute to a candidate, the right thing is to make sure you are doing so legally and make sure you have no expectations for anything in return other than the hope that the candidate will do their job well. Candidates should commit to not letting any money purchase their votes if they make it to office.

When only 53% of people in the United States believe their elected officials are honest according to a recent Pew Research Center poll, it might be easy to dismiss the expectation that candidates running for office will do what’s right. Nevertheless, they should and voters should hold them accountable even if it takes waiting until the next election cycle to vote them out of office.

Sunday, March 01, 2026

When do loud talkers on the train cross the line?

Are loud conversations on electronic devices on public transportation wrong?

I live in Boston, and it’s often simpler to travel from here to Manhattan by an Amtrak train rather than fly. The train involves fewer changes and less waiting around. It also gives me a concentrated 3.5 to 4 hours of reading, napping or catching up on email since the Amtrak Wi-Fi is generally pretty reliable.

The Amtrak Wi-Fi is so reliable that several others who were traveling on the train broke out their laptops and phones and used the journey as an extension of their workspace. That seems smart and productive, although some phone conversations could sometimes grow loud and distracting.

I hadn’t purchased tickets for the quiet car or business class on Amtrak, so such conversations were to be expected. Amtrak rules though are that these conversations must be one-sided and require passengers to use earbuds or headphones if they are going to talk on their phones or do video calls.

Again, it may be distracting, but there is nothing wrong with someone using their phone or talking while on the train as long as they aren’t deliberately trying to be rude or obnoxious to fellow passengers. There is, however, an exception that should be considered by any passenger doing business while on the train. My observations are based on my most recent train trip from Boston to New York City.

For most of the trip, a passenger had her laptop out and engaged in business via FaceTime or cellphone throughout. All well and good and something I could have avoided had I tried to grab a seat in the quiet car.

Where this passenger crossed a line, however, was when she was speaking to a colleague or supervisor to register complaints about a colleague. Most of these complaints had to do with that colleague making the passenger feel dismissed or not listened to. That’s OK, too. What’s not OK is that the passenger mentioned the colleague by name – and by full name, presumably because there were others who shared the same first name, and then by name repeatedly through the elongated airing of grievances.

The passenger had to have known we could all hear her. What the passenger didn’t know was if any of us knew the person about whom she was complaining or if we worked for the same company or if we were customers. If the passenger wanted to register such complaints, the right thing would have been to make sure they did so in a way that did not risk violating the privacy of the person about whom they were leveling the complaints.

Even though we can stay connected far more easily now than in the past, I believe that some conversations are better had in private and ideally in person. My aggrieved passenger might have taken a more thoughtful approach by finding a time where their side of the conversation was only heard by the person being complained to.

Sunday, February 22, 2026

Readers respond with stories of returned wallets

How much of an effort, if any, would you go to to return found money or a wallet?

Several weeks ago, I wrote a column about researchers who deliberately “lost” thousands of wallets around the world to determine how many people would try to return them. Most people it turns out tried to return the wallets, although the return rate in Switzerland (76%) topped all other countries. The researchers also found that the more money a wallet contained, the more likely a finder was to try to return it.

I asked readers to share their experiences of when they’ve found wallets or cash. Unsurprisingly, most shared experiences were those who tried valiantly to do the right thing by reconnecting the lost wallet or money with its owner.

One reader, C.C., wrote that on her frequent walks she has found everything from cell phones to wallets, but mostly she finds cash. Because she can’t tell who owns the cash C.C. decided to give it to the owner of the closest house. “I knew it wasn’t mine,” wrote C.C. while acknowledging that it likely didn’t always belong to the owners of those houses either.

When S.S. was at the counter at her bank, she noticed an elderly man signing a check before he went to get on a teller’s line. He’d left his wallet on the counter and she immediately returned the wallet, and also saluted him for his military service as indicated by the cap he was wearing.

L.K. found $250 in cash in the parking lot of her downtown pharmacy, one $50 bill and two $100 bills. After getting over her “initial glee” at the find, she did the right thing and left her name and phone number with the pharmacy’s cashier in the event someone returned looking for their money. No one ever did. After much deliberation L.K. decided to treat her family to a birthday celebration dinner.

A few months ago, J.W. found a wallet in a shopping center parking lot. No money was inside but there was a driver’s license, credit cards and other items. He decided to drive to the address on the license to return the wallet since it wasn’t very far away. The person who answered the door seemed suspicious, wrote J.W.; they took the wallet then abruptly closed the door. “Though not well-received, I felt on cloud nine for that simple deed,” wrote J.W.

Several Christmas Eve’s ago, C.R. found a Christmas card containing $100 on the ground near the door of a restaurant. The card was addressed to a young man from his grandparent, but no last names were included. C.R. left his name and phone number with the restaurant manager and kept the card, “hoping someone would call.” No one ever called to claim the card or money so C.R. gave the cash to a woman he knows who uses her own money to feed hungry people she meets each morning on a street corner at what she calls her “warming station.” All these years later, C.R. wrote that if anyone ever does call about the card, he will have $100 waiting for them.

More readers wrote of their experiences. “I couldn’t help but ask myself how I’d feel if the situation was reversed,” wrote J.W. He and others, in their own way, indicated they’d done their best to do the right thing.

Sunday, February 15, 2026

Should waiters expect a tip on every meal served?

Is it wrong not to leave a minimum tip on the bill for a restaurant meal?

A reader we’re calling Lawrence reported that he recently was told of a waiter who confronted a party of five who have spent more than $230 on their meals and left a $20 tip. “You only left me $20 for a tip,” the waiter reportedly said to the group as they were leaving.

Lawrence found it unusual for a waiter to confront a party of diners, but he also wondered if the waiter was correct to determine that leaving an 8.7% tip on a meal was wrong.

In the United States, there’s an understanding that waiters typically make less than minimum wage but that the difference is made up for by the tips diners leave. If the server ends up making less than the federal minimum wage after tips are added in, the employer is obligated to make up the difference. The federal minimum wage in the United States is $7.25 per hour (a rate that hasn’t changed since 2009), and the federal tipped minimum wage is $2.13 per hour. Because the federal tipped minimum wage is below the federal minimum wage, most Americans who dine out know that most servers make a living wage based on the tips they receive.

Given this understanding, it is fair to expect that leaving a tip for a server is the right thing to do. Fifteen percent used to be the minimum you’d leave as a tip for service, although that’s creeped up to 18% of late. Many restaurants will feature how much a tip of various percentages would be at the bottom of the dinner check to make it simpler for a diner to calculate and presumably as a nudge to remind them that tipping is expected if not required.

Is a tip required? No, not unless a restaurant automatically adds one onto its checks for diners and makes it clear to diners that they will be doing so.

If service is not great, some diners will decide to leave no tip. They should realize that doing so not only reflects on the service provided, but also results in the server receiving less than minimum wage. When bad service is experienced, an alternative route might be to address concerns to the manager or to avail oneself of one of the various sites available online to leave restaurant reviews. Unless a tip is built into the final bill, however, it’s a diner’s prerogative to leave whatever tip he deems appropriate.

But back to Lawrence’s questions. No, it was not good form for the waiter to call out the diners who left a measly tip. If the restaurant wanted to make sure a minimum tip got paid, they should build that into the bill, even if doing so was bound to annoy some diners who believe they should make such decisions for themselves. Was it wrong to leave a $20 tip on a $230 meal? If the service was good enough, the right thing would have been for the diners to have left at least a 15% tip of $35 to help ensure that server made closer to a living wage. Even if the diners figured that rounding up to $250 total for their meal was just easier, it would have been good to remember that doing so didn’t make anything easier for the server.