People often gather together for a certain purpose and sometimes, along the way, their initial goal changes. As long as everyone is happy about the change, there is no need to worry about this natural sequence of events. However, this is not always the case. And people might find themselves in a situation where they signed up for one thing, but it turned into another. It is here that they have to decide what they value more: faithfulness to that particular group of people and the majority’s vote or something else. This father decided that he respected the promise given to the cheerleading team more than people’s time and money donated to make this fundraising event.
More info: Reddit
The PTA had been preparing for a fundraiser for months, so one father is livid after this plan takes a turn
Image credits: Dani Jace (not the actual photo)
The majority voted to buy new football equipment instead, therefore the man cancelled the event venue
Image credits: ptawoesandtrials
Image credits: David Baron (not the actual photo)
Image credits: ptawoesandtrials
The fundraiser was established to raise money for new cheerleader uniforms and the kids were excited about it
Image credits: Pixabay (not the actual photo)
The football coach suggested that the football equipment needed to be replaced and the PTA voted to use the fundraiser for it
This man decided to turn the whole PTA down by refusing to provide his property and furnishing for their fundraising event, which he had promised early in the planning and which was agreed to be cost-free. He shared that he is in a way driven by strong emotions of anger and disappointment and most of the people involved in the event do not empathize with his actions, but, as noted by Redditors, his reasons seem to be fair.
The main context of the story, as shared by this man, is the fundraising event, the planning of which took a long time for the people involved. The PTA had been planning for months to raise money for new cheerleader uniforms and got the kids excited, as the old uniforms were very outdated.
The man wasn’t the only one contributing to the event. Many people worked hard spending their time and money for making and buying things to be sold at the fundraiser, while the man, as noted, agreed to provide his property as a venue.
It all was going well until the football coach suggested the football equipment had to be replaced and it was voted by the PTA to use the funds raised for it. This is when the father got livid, as the event suddenly changed its nature when it was almost done organizing. He explains that from his side, he went above and beyond to help out the cheerleading team. However, the main argument he brought up was that his child and all the kids from the cheerleading team got their hopes up only to be dashed by the group of adults, who were supposed to show a good example of keeping one’s word.
As a consequence, the father refused to go with the decision that the majority agreed upon by voting and took his offer to use his property back. In this way, he was putting the event at risk, as he knew they wouldn’t be able to find a venue this late, especially not at an affordable price.
After this man cancelled the free venue, he was accused of throwing all the people's hard work in the trash
Image credits: MART PRODUCTION (not the actual photo)
Redditors agreed this man had every right to refuse the venue and could have suggested the football field instead
This made the majority of people involved angry at him, including some people who voted against the change. The main argument was, of course, that he was “throwing all their hard work in the trash.” People were claiming that the only thing that mattered at that point was voting, and that by refusing to comply with the majority’s decision he was acting like a dictator, while this man was pointing to the children’s feelings and doing justice to what was promised to them in the first place.
In his book “On the Psychology of Promising,” Herbert J. Schlesinger claims that psychologists and psychoanalysts have not paid sufficient attention to making and keeping promises. He, on the contrary, claims that the ability to make and keep a promise should be taken to be, if not the defining act of moral maturity, then at least a defining act of moral maturity.
He contrasts this phenomenon with fiction, such as Greek dramas and Shakespeare’s plays, which, according to him, people often regard as intuitive psychologists. The importance of a promise was emphasized in these plays by making it a force that moved the actions of its characters, even in situations when the promise wasn’t made honestly. Schlesinger notes that Sophocles and Shakespeare, in their works, considered promises to “take the life of their own,” showing them fulfilling themselves “even in spite of the too-late change of heart of the promiser.”
