Active Users:588 Time:19/03/2026 07:06:35 AM
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 1591 Views
Just as a contract is a two way street - - 12/10/2010 05:12:09 PM 1059 Views
do we have a moral obligation to society? - 12/10/2010 06:00:17 PM 1051 Views
It's a good question - 14/10/2010 02:41:21 AM 954 Views
Sort of have to disagree... - 13/10/2010 02:52:07 AM 1021 Views
That's not true actually - 14/10/2010 02:35:43 AM 948 Views
Of course it's immoral. - 12/10/2010 05:13:16 PM 1026 Views
But does one sided morality work? - 12/10/2010 05:38:56 PM 1141 Views
That's the only kind of morality there is! What the hell is wrong with you? - 12/10/2010 08:15:55 PM 980 Views
nothing wrong with me but I think you are off your meds again - 12/10/2010 09:34:33 PM 957 Views
Re: nothing wrong with me but I think you are off your meds again - 15/10/2010 02:50:49 PM 1472 Views
well I really can't argue with the wrong is wrong end of story belief system - 15/10/2010 05:40:22 PM 1157 Views
A contract isn't a promise; it's a legal agreement. *NM* - 12/10/2010 06:25:24 PM 476 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 999 Views
I would agree with you if contracts didn't provide for breaking them. - 12/10/2010 07:33:15 PM 848 Views
Hrm. - 12/10/2010 07:35:38 PM 1070 Views
It's not immoral to break the marriage contract. - 12/10/2010 08:19:50 PM 1119 Views
I don't see that as the flaw in my logic. - 12/10/2010 08:37:52 PM 1026 Views
Re: I don't see that as the flaw in my logic. - 12/10/2010 09:00:00 PM 1107 Views
also - 12/10/2010 09:37:38 PM 969 Views
That makes no sense whatsoever. - 13/10/2010 11:38:06 PM 1108 Views
That must be why they have you sign something called an agreementory note *NM* - 12/10/2010 07:33:32 PM 493 Views
Exactly *NM* - 12/10/2010 07:58:25 PM 461 Views
So, you think bankruptcy laws are immoral? - 13/10/2010 12:18:43 AM 1002 Views
I don't think it's immoral at all. The contract usually specifies penalties for breach. - 12/10/2010 05:28:34 PM 1105 Views
I thought the answer might be something like that. *NM* - 12/10/2010 05:35:35 PM 449 Views
that is close to the way I see it - 12/10/2010 05:45:25 PM 958 Views
It's both legal and immoral. - 12/10/2010 06:37:49 PM 1032 Views
You didn't mention the third party - 12/10/2010 08:26:56 PM 887 Views
in a way I did since I did mention society - 12/10/2010 08:54:07 PM 1030 Views
Thus the edit - 12/10/2010 09:10:53 PM 1047 Views
either way I think you made a good point *NM* - 12/10/2010 09:38:58 PM 436 Views
will those neighbors... - 14/10/2010 04:52:26 AM 1197 Views
All depends where you get your morals from, really. - 12/10/2010 08:28:41 PM 1026 Views
I guess what i was trying to ask, at least in part - 12/10/2010 09:48:24 PM 1031 Views
What if you look at it from the other perspective? - 12/10/2010 09:00:20 PM 1057 Views
do you think they would if they had a legal way to do it? - 12/10/2010 10:04:57 PM 1007 Views
Good point. *NM* - 12/10/2010 11:10:26 PM 464 Views
Sure, you could do that. - 13/10/2010 01:54:55 AM 1046 Views
Much like the concept of morality itself. - 12/10/2010 11:47:23 PM 946 Views
I find this line particularly interesting. - 13/10/2010 12:13:18 AM 988 Views
Dunno. - 13/10/2010 12:56:56 AM 1095 Views
As a professional in financial services - no, it is not. - 13/10/2010 01:44:18 AM 986 Views
but almost nobody sees it that way - 13/10/2010 12:53:25 PM 989 Views
Is the deal that if you default, the bank gets the house and nothing else, though? - 13/10/2010 02:40:48 PM 976 Views
yes but the bank has a limited ability to collect - 13/10/2010 02:47:34 PM 897 Views
I think it's morally wrong to walk away from credit card debt. *NM* - 13/10/2010 09:43:11 PM 451 Views
I'm curious how you reconcile that - 13/10/2010 09:47:59 PM 1011 Views
Collateral - 19/10/2010 07:21:14 PM 1502 Views
I agree, what do you think is different? - 13/10/2010 09:59:36 PM 998 Views
I lost sleep over it, but I did it anyway. - 13/10/2010 05:24:19 AM 1081 Views
OK what if you take it a step further - 13/10/2010 03:44:30 PM 1087 Views
Good question - 14/10/2010 05:13:41 AM 1059 Views
I have some questions about this issue. - 13/10/2010 08:14:37 AM 1000 Views
how do those questions affect the morality of the situation? - 13/10/2010 03:20:14 PM 951 Views
Obviously, the essential difference is can't pay versus won't pay. - 13/10/2010 02:16:07 PM 965 Views
are you socializing your debt when it is a private bank? - 13/10/2010 03:14:48 PM 1031 Views
You are when said bank requires a bailout. And very many of them do. - 13/10/2010 03:22:59 PM 965 Views
it is the home fault that the banks have to be bailed out - 13/10/2010 03:49:37 PM 1012 Views
I believe it immoral to do harm. - 13/10/2010 04:38:28 PM 1035 Views
I really don't understand a system where this could be an advantage. - 13/10/2010 11:16:57 PM 980 Views
There's generally something like a 7 or 10 year limit on credit reporting here. - 13/10/2010 11:46:58 PM 1007 Views
What's the use of suing someone who has no money? *NM* - 13/10/2010 11:48:47 PM 514 Views
You can garnish their wages. - 13/10/2010 11:49:36 PM 988 Views
With parsley? - 13/10/2010 11:51:37 PM 1057 Views
No, "someone" most certainly did not, wicked young Miss! Hmph! *NM* - 13/10/2010 11:52:40 PM 498 Views
If they suddenly come into some, you're entitled to it. *NM* - 14/10/2010 12:07:34 AM 574 Views
Bit of a long shot. *NM* - 14/10/2010 12:09:12 AM 447 Views
Very. Best to cover your bases though. *NM* - 14/10/2010 10:04:25 PM 465 Views
Not if the doctrine of election applies. - 14/10/2010 10:14:07 PM 962 Views
Are we not talking about credit companies going after people who owe them money? - 14/10/2010 10:18:47 PM 1008 Views
Yeah, I guess we are. - 14/10/2010 10:28:40 PM 1034 Views
Re: - 14/10/2010 03:09:18 AM 1008 Views
I am currently in that situation... - 14/10/2010 05:03:23 AM 1107 Views
Re: I am currently in that situation... - 14/10/2010 05:49:24 PM 1329 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 453 Views

Reply to Message