I Drove the Whole Trip Alone, But My Friends Aren't Grateful?

『Republic』#2

I went on a 3-day road trip with my friends B and C. I decided to drive my own car.

Eight hours a day for three days, I sat in the driver’s seat and held the steering wheel. The wind was blowing, the music was playing, and we were laughing on the road — it felt really good.

But to be honest, driving was exhausting.

The gas cost a total of $150, and various travel expenses (lodging, meals, etc.) came out to $300.

When the trip ended, it was time to settle the expenses. B made the first suggestion: “For the travel costs, let’s each pay $100. For gas, C and I will pay $60 each, and A, you pay only $30.” Because I provided the car.

But I thought differently. “I did all the driving, so for the gas, B and C should each pay $75. I drove alone, so I should be compensated for that.”

C was even more extreme: “A, if you had traveled alone, you would’ve paid the full $150 for gas — thanks to us, you gained $120.”

My head rang. Standing in front of that logic, my right leg, which had pressed the accelerator and brake for 24 hours, felt stupid.

The guys I believed were my friends suddenly started looking like merchants punching numbers into calculators. (Transition)

To understand this mud fight, let’s look at it economically. First, let’s calculate the costs if each person had traveled separately.

If A had traveled alone, A would have paid the full $150 for gas. Let’s assume B and C don’t have cars.

Then B and C would have hired a driver and paid roughly $240 each in total. But when A, B, and C travel together, the $150 gas cost is shared.

If, according to B’s proposal, A received a total of $120 in gas money, then A gains $120 compared to traveling alone. According to B’s proposal, B and C each gain $180 compared to traveling alone.

In other words, compared to traveling alone, economically everyone experiences a positive improvement. What C is claiming is that compared to traveling alone, A benefits economically anyway because B and C were there, so A has no reason to complain.

Then what about A’s position? It is true that A benefits economically because B and C are there.

But the problem is that even though A alone provided labor that everyone shared, A’s degree of benefit is the smallest. B and C did not set the comparison target as “hiring a driver ($240),” but as “the money A would have paid if we hadn’t gone ($150).”

In other words, they framed it (Frame) as if they were granting A a favor. From A’s perspective, this calculation method and procedure itself is insulting, because it sets the value of A’s labor at “$0.”

Since A, B, and C are all human beings, they can set calculation methods however they like, in ways that benefit themselves, depending on the situation. To understand this, let’s borrow the wisdom of an ancient Greek philosopher. That is actually the purpose for which I planned this video.

For Plato, it was not considered good that, with every event, every time, every community, ethical standards are temporarily erected and then collapse.

What he had specifically in mind was a democratic political condition in which desire dominates human beings. It is one stage of degeneration. The problem with democracy is excessive freedom.

Because everyone pursues their own desires as the top priority, society becomes disorderly, and eventually a strong leader appears and degenerates into a tyrant.

Let’s return to our travel story. The claims of B and C are precisely centered on this “desire.” It is a way of thinking that believes everything is resolved if money, the symbol of desire, has been satisfied.

Then what about A? Is A’s anger justified? A is in a state subordinate to “spirit” (thymos). A treats their labor and fairness like honor and insists, “I should be compensated.” This values courage and balance, but if excessive it can lead to anger or imbalance.

Unless A exercises “reason,” Plato would not consider A’s state to be very good.

Plato’s lesson is: “Do not be trapped in desire or spirit; pursue the Idea (absolute truth) through reason. In other words, grasp the components of the human soul in order to grasp the whole of the soul.

And interestingly, the thinking process of recognizing that the soul is composed of reason, desire, and spirit itself requires reason.

Plato’s attitude toward life is quite impressive, but it likely won’t seem plausible to modern people.

For modern people, money is important, after all. But there may be something deeper than simply saying money is important.

In my view, Plato would probably ask something like: “If you measure friendship in economic terms, you can’t exactly receive $10 just because you told your friend an entertaining story, can you?” He would draw out the answer “That’s correct,” and then proceed with the discussion on the premise that the essence of friendship cannot be connected to economic logic.

However, as times have changed, conducting a discussion by pouring everything uniformly into one side has come to be seen as an unsophisticated method.

For example, today it seems more plausible to say, “Friendship is unrelated to economic logic, and yet at the same time, you also cannot completely ignore economic logic within a friendship.” But that too will fall into a trap, because it presupposes the absolute claim that nothing is absolute.

In this aporia, what would you do? Is it really right to squeeze an extra $15 from each friend?