Is not the whole land before you? Please separate from me. If you take the left, then I will go to the right; or, if you go to the right, then I will go to the left. (Gen 13,9)

Who should have had the right of first choice here? Of course, Abram. It was his expedition to which he took Lot. Lot thus owed Abram practically all he had and had followed him on his journey from Ur to Haran, Canaan, Egypt, and back. Their herds grew, prospered, all thanks to Abram's thoughtful guidance and the blessings that rested on him — despite all the failures he had committed.

Abram wanted to prevent quarrels from escalating into a dispute between him and Lot. If he decided to take such a step as separation, it must have been obvious that Lot was inwardly no longer one with him. If he were, there would have been a mutual will for peace, but their relationship changed.

Lot was younger (it was an important factor for the decision who should have had the first say at the time) and, like the one who had so far benefited from the Abram-run business, should have yielded. Abram showed his generosity and offered him a choice. He knew very well that he could lose the best places for herds and prosperity, in other words: his revenues would now be smaller than Lot's. Still, he behaved nobly, even though he must have known that the generosity would cost him a lot, a lot of money.

It's the same in life - a self-centred person who is not generous is usually more successful in the short-term (even when driving on the road...). Who is more willing to compromise usually loses. Nowadays many parents teach their children not to give in, but to try to push through at any cost. Yes, it certainly works for a while, just as when behind the wheel. But often a hard blow comes later. It is a strange phenomenon that such a person cannot even be fully happy (which he usually does not realize in his condition). If everyone wants to win recklessly, in what world will we only be doomed to live?

Lot neither worried about how virtuous his steps were, nor inquired of the Lord. He chose a better piece of land and moved on. Logically, he was to be the one to come out of the situation as the winner and Abram as the looser. But the subsequent paths of both of them showed the case was actually the opposite.