Moral Questions: Responsibility of action w or w/o ignorance

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

Hello there, I've been bouncing some morality questions around in my head for some time now and none of my mates can logically prove my posistion incorrect. They usually just get pissed and don't talk to me for some time. But apparently this type of thinking that I have causes them some problems.

Situation 1 (Premise):

Lets say that there are two farmers A and B who's plots of land are next to one another. They both plant the same crops and use exactly the same tools. Some of Farmer B's tools breaks and he can not get or make a new one in time to tend his fields for the harvest. He asks every day to borrow Farmer A's tools so he can get his work done. Farmer A agrees and gives no reservations on there use, not thinking it would cause any problems. Farmer B does all the work he would normally do with the tools and returns them to Farmer A at the end of the day. Farmer A is tired though and can't do all the work he'd normally do, he can only do half. When harvest time comes around Farmer A can't sell enough of his crops because he couldn't tend all his land. Farmer B sells all the crops he normally would because Farmer A loaned him his tools the whole season. When the harvest is over, Farmer A gets very angry at Farmer B and tells Farmber B that Farmer B ruined Farmer A's harvest. Farmer A demands compensation. Farmer B though wasn't aware though that his borrowing the tools caused Farmer A such harm. Farmer B is sorry but he's not going to give Farmer A any of his profit because Farmer A never told Farmer B that borrowing the tools was a problem and Farmer B was not aware of it the entire season.

Situation 2:

The same two Farmers in situation 1 however Farmer A realizes about a quarter of the way through the season that he won't get all his work done. Yet he never approaches Farmer B. Farmer A is not happy and knows he won't get his work done but continues to allow Farmer B to borrow his tools with no reservations. The same result occurs as in situation 1.

Situation 3:

The same as situation 2, however Farmer B is a bit more crafty of a fellow. A quarter through the season Farmer B realizes that his using Farmer A's tools his going to hurt Farmer A's harvest, the same time Farmer A does. He doesn't return them, instead he asks Farmer A if the continued use of Farmer A's tools will be a problem, not hinting at all that he knows that it will be. Farmer A has, of course, also realized he won't finish his work for the season but decides to still allow Farmer B to use his tools. The same situation results as in Situation 1 however Farmer B reveals that he knew that continued use of the tools would be a problem for Farmer A. However Farmer B reminds Farmer A that he asked Farmer A if continued use would be a problem and Farmer A said that it wouldn't. Therefore Farmer B believes he is not liable not due to ignorance but because he approached Farmer A and Farmer A still told him using the tools was acceptable.

Situation 4:

This is the same as Situation 3 however Farmer B after realizing that continued use of the tools would be a problem says nothing instead of approachin Farmer A. At the end of the season when Farmer A demands compensation Farmer B reveals that he knew it would be a problem but since Farmer A never mentioned it, he does not feel himself liable.

Questions:

1) Is Farmer B liable, from a moral not legal standpoint, in any of the Situations?
2) When Farmer A realizes that Farmer B's borrowing of the tools will hurt him, are Farmer A's demands weakened since he never approaches Farmer B.
3) In situations 3 & 4 should Farmer B have simply come up with a plan to share the tools or was he fine with continued use of the tools despite the fact Farmer A never affirmed that borrowing the tools would be a problem.

[Singular Intellect]

Farmer A is an idiot, Farmer B is innocent is all cases.

Farmer A has authority over the tools, therefore he needs only to ask for them back. And he's obviously a stupid farmer if he gives up his tools that he should damn well now he will badly need. At the very least he should have mentioned that as soon as he needs them, he'll have to take them back, and Farmer B should be quite understanding.

If Farmer B doesn't relinquish them, only then is there legal and moral implications.

[Zixinus]

I'm new at this but let me give a try:

Farmer B is sorry but he's not going to give Farmer A any of his profit because Farmer A never told Farmer B that borrowing the tools was a problem and Farmer B was not aware of it the entire season.

I see no moral conflict, unless Farmer A purposefully withheld knowledge of his damage.

The (most moral) solution is simple: Farmer B pays back some of the damage over the years. Or pay 1/4th of his pay now and call it even. He won't pay in full, because it was partly Farmer A's own damn fault that he didn't think properly but he is still damaged indirectly by Farmer B's action. Paying back half or so is enough.

Situation 2:

Then Farmber B is not (that much) liable. In the first situation, Farmer A suffered because both party's stupidity or simple lack of thinking. In this, he is either purposefully generous either out of kindness (yeah, right) or out of deliberate knowledge that he would have some questionable stand to demand money from Farmer B.
The solution here can be still paying something.

Situation 3:

Both parties are to blame, but more on Farmer B's side then A's. Farmer B did harm on purpose, therefore he is to pay full to Farmer A (does not have to pay at one time). However, Farmer A is still either stupid or an overgenerous idiot or a crafty idiot.
Solution: pay half price over a long time.

Situation 4:

Same as the former in solution, but Farmer B is even more liable.

1) Is Farmer B liable, from a moral not legal standpoint, in any of the Situations?

Not much in the first two, because he was just stupid. It's not immoral to be stupid (to act upon it though is a different question). In the other two, yes, he knew he caused harm. Far less in the third, because he at least asked and the responsibility of his own work shifted to A. A is directly responsible for his own work and either his generous or crafty idiocy has caused damage to himself.

2) When Farmer A realizes that Farmer B's borrowing of the tools will hurt him, are Farmer A's demands weakened since he never approaches Farmer B.

I would say yes: he allowed it and gave way to the motive to purposefully put B in dept. Whether he had such intent does not matter: A is responsible for his crops and he had the option to share his tools without hurting himself.

Either way, it might be worth still paying back some of the money over time, regardless of the situation: these two people have a long-term relationship as they are more-or-less neighbours. It is wiser to just lose some money now or over time then cast blame all around. Farmer B may lose some money now or over time, but Farmer A might be willing to give his tools again if necessary and not lose status in the community. That is something that I think may be much more worth then money.

Either way, both are idiots to some degree. Farmers should keep backup tools. Hell, I am pretty sure they do. When I was over my relatives, I saw a shitload of tools laying around.

[Sriad]

The premise is unclear. You say "Farmer A is tired though and can't do all the work he'd normally do, he can only do half. When harvest time comes around Farmer A can't sell enough of his crops because he couldn't tend all his land."

Is this somehow a DIRECT consequence of Allan lending Bert his tools, is it just because Allan is 70 years old and should be hiring day laborers to do the hard parts of farming for him? Your follow up questions indicate that you meant the former.

If it DID have a direct consequence, then yes Bert has a moral responsibility of varying degree in all cases. The gamesmanship and plotting in various scenarios are character flaws, but they don't change the fundamental premise: Bert would have been utterly fucked without Allan's tools. Whether you call it The Golden Rule, You Scratch My Back I'll Scratch Yours, or whatever, "do unto others as you would be done unto" is the fundamental law of human morality.

Allan did Bert a solid when Bert needed it.
If Bert doesn't do Allan a solid when Allan needs it, Bert is a stupendous cunt.

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

The premise is unclear. You say "Farmer A is tired though and can't do all the work he'd normally do, he can only do half. When harvest time comes around Farmer A can't sell enough of his crops because he couldn't tend all his land."

Is this somehow a DIRECT consequence of Allan lending Bert his tools, is it just because Allan is 70 years old and should be hiring day laborers to do the hard parts of farming for him? Your follow up questions indicate that you meant the former.

Yes I apologize. Thank you for pointing it out. Since Bert uses Allans tools all day, Allan gets them back in the evening, when he is more fatigued from trying to work without them to work with them as effectively.

If it DID have a direct consequence, then yes Bert has a moral responsibility of varying degree in all cases. The gamesmanship and plotting in various scenarios are character flaws, but they don't change the fundamental premise: Bert would have been utterly fucked without Allan's tools. Whether you call it The Golden Rule, You Scratch My Back I'll Scratch Yours, or whatever, "do unto others as you would be done unto" is the fundamental law of human morality.

Allan did Bert a solid when Bert needed it.
If Bert doesn't do Allan a solid when Allan needs it, Bert is a stupendous cunt.

Thanks. I'd hoped I'd get a few more perspectives however I suppose my example sucked. I'm still trying to figure out whether I'm "right" or "wrong" in many of the situations I end up with.