@Aethelflaed Sorry, my mistake! ”Qua” is Latin for “as” and is meant to draw attention to a specific aspect or capacity of something that has many aspects or capacities. Or to put it terms more closely resembling English, ”qua” might be said to mean something like “in virtue of being _____.”
What I owe to someone in virtue of being their friend is likely to be much different from what I owe them in virtue of being, say, their boss. In virtue of being their friend, I owe them a certain kind of moral support should they call at two o’clock in the morning; this would not be something I owed them were I merely their boss. In virtue of being their boss, I owe them a salary; this would not be something I owed them were I merely their friend.
When we talk about what we owe people, then, it is often relevant to ask ”qua what?” It is my opinion that focusing on the events to which the friend has gone as if that is what affects the asker’s obligations is a mistake. There is certainly something wrong with this situation, but the problem does not exist in virtue of the friend having attended several events to which she was invited by the asker. The problem lies in the demands of friendship as such.
Now that I have been able to read the original letter, I agree that the asker did not respond optimally. She should have done more to make up for the fact that she was disappointing her friend. That said, I still don’t think she was obligated to go to this event—pending new information about what makes this event so special.
@nikipedia I wish I knew more about the specific event. I do not disagree that the friend has a right to feel hurt about the invitation being declined, but I do disagree—for now, at least—that the asker has an obligation to attend. I would change my mind completely, however, if I knew that this event was important for some particular reason.
It occurs to me that this might be the friend’s official debut as a member of the board of directors. If so, then I agree with you completely with regard to what you wrote several posts ago (and which I regrettably did not see until reloading the question due to the fact that it was added by edit). That is, I would agree that the asker is devaluing her friend’s choices and overvaluing her own (different) choices.
Whether this information was purposefully held back by the asker, or whether it simply isn’t actually relevant, I do not know. This would affect my opinion with regard to the “not impossible, but very difficult” bit of the asker’s letter, though. After all, it is trivially true that the fact that attending the event is not impossible means the asker is prioritizing other potential expenditures over going to the event. The reasonableness of that priority, however, is as yet an open question for me given the information I have.
I actually disagree with both you and Ms. Hax, however, that one can always find creative solutions. The invitation was for two. Even if the asker could wear the drapes, her husband could do no such thing if this were a black tie or white tie event. He could rent, of course, but even that might be out of budget. At present, we simply aren’t sure (or, at least, I am not).
See also my response to @Aethelflaed for a reply to your most recent post.