Ethical dilemmas and moral predicaments can be sticky situations. They bring anxiety, stress and confusion, and force us to reevaluate our personal morals and judgments.

My pickle came about two weeks ago when I attended the annual Harvard Conference in Boston, Mass. as a member of the Binghamton University Model United Nations Team. I was lying on the bed in my hotel room pondering the mysteries of the universe, when I heard something crack in my jacket. I reached into my pocket and pulled out a pair of sunglasses, which now had a huge crack and a displaced lens.

You might wonder how broken glasses are indicative of a moral dilemma. Aren’t they just broken glasses? While this is true, this dilemma has something of a back story.

The origins of the broken glasses are as follows: My friend, who will remain anonymous, and I had gone to Wal-Mart. My friend felt it necessary to steal a pair of glasses in order to “stick them to the corporate pigs.” I, two weeks later, fully aware of my friend’s klepto activity, asked to borrow his pair of sunglasses for my trip. Cue the loud cracking noise.

This question presents itself: Do I owe my friend a new pair of sunglasses?

Although I thought about this deeply, probably for a whole 30 seconds, I reached a conclusion that I believed was logically sound. I believed that I owed him nothing, nada, nil — say it any way you’d like.

Legally speaking, the answer is quite clear and involves our basic concept of property rights.

When my friend made the claim that I owed him a new pair, he implied that he owned the glasses. By claiming that he owned the glasses, he implied that someone else has a duty or obligation to respect his possession. This is where his reasoning is flawed.

By stealing the glasses, he removes any legitimate claim rights on the property. Because of this, nobody has a duty or obligation to respect his possession. If any legal argument was to be made, it would have to involve what he or I owe Wal-Mart, certainly not what I owe him.

While this reasoning might provide an answer to certain legal implications, it might not answer questions concerning what I like to call “the friendship ethic.”

What is this friendship I speak of? It is a certain unwritten agreement that friends agree to concerning respect for one’s property, family and other possessions. It involves treating your comrade just as you would treat yourself. Essentially, it is the foundation of all loyal friendships.

If we both tacitly agree to this friendship agreement, am I morally required to replace an object of his that I broke, even if it is stolen property?

I say no. Because the glasses were stolen, his argument regarding the “friendship ethic” falls apart. He never actually paid for the glasses, so it would be unfair for me to pay him to replace them. Ultimately, he would enjoy a net gain and I would experience a net loss.

Additionally, if my friend guilted me into buying him a new pair, is my friend actually complying with the “friendship ethic” himself?

The only conceivable argument I could understand, regarding the friendship ethic, would be if my friend relied on the glasses for his livelihood. If day in and day out he needed these glasses and had to make an out-of-pocket payment because I broke them, it might be reasonable for me to help him out.

This definitely was not the case, considering he had an additional stolen pair right on the desk.

I hope that people will think about the different ethical decisions facing them each day and evaluate what truly matters to them morally. And, perhaps most importantly, I hope all Wal-Mart attorneys reading this article will be merciful to my klepto friend.