Active Users:886 Time:01/02/2026 03:20:21 PM
Of course it's immoral. Sareitha Sedai Send a noteboard - 12/10/2010 05:13:16 PM
You have made a promise to pay a certain amount of money over a certain amount of time under specific terms. That the bank requires collateral in the form of the home itself is irrelevant from a moral standpoint. It seems to me that people are more and more tempted by how easy it is to just not pay things they have undertaken an obligation to pay. I see this particularly with credit cards and mortgages, because the creditors either have little to no recourse, aren't choosing to take the recourse available to them (often due to the costs involved) or, like these foreclosure situations, it takes the creditors so much time to pursue that the debtors don't really care.

Sure, you can complain all you want about the unfair practices of the banks and credit card companies, and convince yourself that you don't owe them anything. But the place for that moral outrage is really before you sign a contract with them; afterwards, you are at the very least morally obligated to meet those terms whether there is any sort of legal enforcement or not.

If you are from Betelgeuse, please have one of your Earth friends read what I've written before you respond. Or try concentrating harder.

"The trophy problem has become extreme."
This message last edited by Sareitha Sedai on 12/10/2010 at 05:16:12 PM
Reply to message
Is walking away from a mortgage immoral? - 12/10/2010 04:45:43 PM 1559 Views
Just as a contract is a two way street - - 12/10/2010 05:12:09 PM 1037 Views
do we have a moral obligation to society? - 12/10/2010 06:00:17 PM 1023 Views
It's a good question - 14/10/2010 02:41:21 AM 931 Views
Sort of have to disagree... - 13/10/2010 02:52:07 AM 998 Views
That's not true actually - 14/10/2010 02:35:43 AM 930 Views
Of course it's immoral. - 12/10/2010 05:13:16 PM 1006 Views
But does one sided morality work? - 12/10/2010 05:38:56 PM 1119 Views
That's the only kind of morality there is! What the hell is wrong with you? - 12/10/2010 08:15:55 PM 953 Views
nothing wrong with me but I think you are off your meds again - 12/10/2010 09:34:33 PM 937 Views
Re: nothing wrong with me but I think you are off your meds again - 15/10/2010 02:50:49 PM 1448 Views
well I really can't argue with the wrong is wrong end of story belief system - 15/10/2010 05:40:22 PM 1137 Views
A contract isn't a promise; it's a legal agreement. *NM* - 12/10/2010 06:25:24 PM 467 Views
Which is why contracts have to be pages and pages long and combed over by bloodsucking lawyers. - 12/10/2010 06:39:18 PM 977 Views
I would agree with you if contracts didn't provide for breaking them. - 12/10/2010 07:33:15 PM 829 Views
Hrm. - 12/10/2010 07:35:38 PM 1048 Views
It's not immoral to break the marriage contract. - 12/10/2010 08:19:50 PM 1093 Views
I don't see that as the flaw in my logic. - 12/10/2010 08:37:52 PM 1007 Views
Re: I don't see that as the flaw in my logic. - 12/10/2010 09:00:00 PM 1088 Views
also - 12/10/2010 09:37:38 PM 944 Views
That makes no sense whatsoever. - 13/10/2010 11:38:06 PM 1084 Views
That must be why they have you sign something called an agreementory note *NM* - 12/10/2010 07:33:32 PM 487 Views
Exactly *NM* - 12/10/2010 07:58:25 PM 453 Views
So, you think bankruptcy laws are immoral? - 13/10/2010 12:18:43 AM 978 Views
I don't think it's immoral at all. The contract usually specifies penalties for breach. - 12/10/2010 05:28:34 PM 1084 Views
I thought the answer might be something like that. *NM* - 12/10/2010 05:35:35 PM 439 Views
that is close to the way I see it - 12/10/2010 05:45:25 PM 935 Views
It's both legal and immoral. - 12/10/2010 06:37:49 PM 1008 Views
You didn't mention the third party - 12/10/2010 08:26:56 PM 858 Views
in a way I did since I did mention society - 12/10/2010 08:54:07 PM 1008 Views
Thus the edit - 12/10/2010 09:10:53 PM 1027 Views
either way I think you made a good point *NM* - 12/10/2010 09:38:58 PM 431 Views
will those neighbors... - 14/10/2010 04:52:26 AM 1171 Views
All depends where you get your morals from, really. - 12/10/2010 08:28:41 PM 1000 Views
I guess what i was trying to ask, at least in part - 12/10/2010 09:48:24 PM 1007 Views
What if you look at it from the other perspective? - 12/10/2010 09:00:20 PM 1033 Views
do you think they would if they had a legal way to do it? - 12/10/2010 10:04:57 PM 982 Views
Good point. *NM* - 12/10/2010 11:10:26 PM 453 Views
Sure, you could do that. - 13/10/2010 01:54:55 AM 1028 Views
Much like the concept of morality itself. - 12/10/2010 11:47:23 PM 929 Views
I find this line particularly interesting. - 13/10/2010 12:13:18 AM 964 Views
Dunno. - 13/10/2010 12:56:56 AM 1066 Views
As a professional in financial services - no, it is not. - 13/10/2010 01:44:18 AM 964 Views
but almost nobody sees it that way - 13/10/2010 12:53:25 PM 966 Views
Is the deal that if you default, the bank gets the house and nothing else, though? - 13/10/2010 02:40:48 PM 954 Views
yes but the bank has a limited ability to collect - 13/10/2010 02:47:34 PM 871 Views
I think it's morally wrong to walk away from credit card debt. *NM* - 13/10/2010 09:43:11 PM 441 Views
I'm curious how you reconcile that - 13/10/2010 09:47:59 PM 987 Views
Collateral - 19/10/2010 07:21:14 PM 1481 Views
I agree, what do you think is different? - 13/10/2010 09:59:36 PM 978 Views
I lost sleep over it, but I did it anyway. - 13/10/2010 05:24:19 AM 1059 Views
OK what if you take it a step further - 13/10/2010 03:44:30 PM 1067 Views
Good question - 14/10/2010 05:13:41 AM 1034 Views
I have some questions about this issue. - 13/10/2010 08:14:37 AM 982 Views
how do those questions affect the morality of the situation? - 13/10/2010 03:20:14 PM 929 Views
Obviously, the essential difference is can't pay versus won't pay. - 13/10/2010 02:16:07 PM 948 Views
are you socializing your debt when it is a private bank? - 13/10/2010 03:14:48 PM 1003 Views
You are when said bank requires a bailout. And very many of them do. - 13/10/2010 03:22:59 PM 952 Views
it is the home fault that the banks have to be bailed out - 13/10/2010 03:49:37 PM 998 Views
I believe it immoral to do harm. - 13/10/2010 04:38:28 PM 1017 Views
I really don't understand a system where this could be an advantage. - 13/10/2010 11:16:57 PM 958 Views
There's generally something like a 7 or 10 year limit on credit reporting here. - 13/10/2010 11:46:58 PM 984 Views
What's the use of suing someone who has no money? *NM* - 13/10/2010 11:48:47 PM 502 Views
You can garnish their wages. - 13/10/2010 11:49:36 PM 964 Views
With parsley? - 13/10/2010 11:51:37 PM 1040 Views
No, "someone" most certainly did not, wicked young Miss! Hmph! *NM* - 13/10/2010 11:52:40 PM 489 Views
If they suddenly come into some, you're entitled to it. *NM* - 14/10/2010 12:07:34 AM 566 Views
Bit of a long shot. *NM* - 14/10/2010 12:09:12 AM 438 Views
Very. Best to cover your bases though. *NM* - 14/10/2010 10:04:25 PM 456 Views
Not if the doctrine of election applies. - 14/10/2010 10:14:07 PM 939 Views
Are we not talking about credit companies going after people who owe them money? - 14/10/2010 10:18:47 PM 983 Views
Yeah, I guess we are. - 14/10/2010 10:28:40 PM 1014 Views
Re: - 14/10/2010 03:09:18 AM 988 Views
I am currently in that situation... - 14/10/2010 05:03:23 AM 1088 Views
Re: I am currently in that situation... - 14/10/2010 05:49:24 PM 1299 Views
it is easy for me and others to be glib when it is just a theory *NM* - 14/10/2010 08:19:16 PM 443 Views

Reply to Message