Active Users:391 Time:16/06/2025 09:42:41 PM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
That's the only kind of morality there is! What the hell is wrong with you? Cannoli Send a noteboard - 12/10/2010 08:15:55 PM
The banks will operate in what they consider their own best interest without regards to your wellbeing.

Your point being?

They will argue that their first obligation is to their stock holders.

Because it is true. That makes it a very good argument.

Wouldn't a lean holder’s first obligation be to their family? You did not enter a blood oath you enter a legal contract. A legal contract that leaves you the legal right to walk away at the cost of the home and your credit rating. Is it immoral to exercise that legal right?
Is it moral to murder someone as long as you are perfectly willing to serve the time? Penalties are not an alternative contract, they are a deterrant. It IS immoral (no one asked about legality here, and the article above appeared to be trying to differentiate between the two concepts & standards) to do something wrong, regardless of whether or not you accept the penalties. If the bank wanted your house, they'd buy it themselves rather than loaning the money out to you. And by not paying the interest, you are depriving the bank of their rightful recompense for the service they provided you (which is what interest is). You are morally NO different than the owner of a company who files for bankruptcy to avoid paying off his employees while still possessing the means to do so. In both cases, one party is avoiding the rightful payment for services rendered.

Is it rational to act against your own best interest by behaving in a “moral” manner with and company that feels no obligations about treating you in a moral way or their own debts for that matter?
The actions of others have NO bearing on the morality of your own, except when you are reacting to an action that directly affects you. If they are attempting to defraud you that is one thing. Refusing to follow through on your end of a transaction is another entirely.

If a bank has the ability to walk away from a huge amount of debt they would do so without thinking about. They do not feel constrained by any concept of a gentleman’s contract.
Bullshit speculation. The affirmation that someone MIGHT do something is not justification in the least, or else any sort of crime or injury could be excused as a preemptive redress. The bank could sieze your assets the same way, claiming that you intended to default.
Cannoli
"Sometimes unhinged, sometimes unfair, always entertaining"
- The Crownless

“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Deus Vult!
Reply to message
Is walking away from a mortgage immoral? random thoughts - 12/10/2010 04:45:43 PM 1463 Views
Just as a contract is a two way street - SilverWarder - 12/10/2010 05:12:09 PM 967 Views
do we have a moral obligation to society? random thoughts - 12/10/2010 06:00:17 PM 960 Views
It's a good question SilverWarder - 14/10/2010 02:41:21 AM 868 Views
Sort of have to disagree... Antigone - 13/10/2010 02:52:07 AM 929 Views
That's not true actually SilverWarder - 14/10/2010 02:35:43 AM 859 Views
Of course it's immoral. Sareitha Sedai - 12/10/2010 05:13:16 PM 931 Views
But does one sided morality work? random thoughts - 12/10/2010 05:38:56 PM 1053 Views
You asked about the morality of walking away when the borrower still has the ability to pay. Sareitha Sedai - 12/10/2010 07:31:10 PM 850 Views
A company or organization cannot act morally or immorally? I strongly disagree. *NM* Legolas - 12/10/2010 07:50:42 PM 416 Views
No, it cannot. However the individuals making the decisions for the company can. *NM* Cannoli - 12/10/2010 08:48:23 PM 363 Views
If banks can not behave in moral manner why should people be expected to behave in moral manner? random thoughts - 12/10/2010 08:07:56 PM 921 Views
I'm not absolved of my obligations based on the bad behaviors of others. Sareitha Sedai - 12/10/2010 08:25:33 PM 833 Views
but who you owe obligations to is a factor random thoughts - 12/10/2010 09:03:04 PM 896 Views
Because it's their moral obligation. Morality is not a trade, you act morally because it is right Cannoli - 12/10/2010 08:47:41 PM 1016 Views
you also use reason and logic to decide where your loyalty rest random thoughts - 12/10/2010 09:16:51 PM 914 Views
You have not explained how it IS the banks' fault Cannoli - 15/10/2010 01:30:10 PM 956 Views
That's the only kind of morality there is! What the hell is wrong with you? Cannoli - 12/10/2010 08:15:55 PM 875 Views
nothing wrong with me but I think you are off your meds again random thoughts - 12/10/2010 09:34:33 PM 879 Views
Re: nothing wrong with me but I think you are off your meds again Cannoli - 15/10/2010 02:50:49 PM 1375 Views
well I really can't argue with the wrong is wrong end of story belief system random thoughts - 15/10/2010 05:40:22 PM 1071 Views
A contract isn't a promise; it's a legal agreement. *NM* Ghavrel - 12/10/2010 06:25:24 PM 436 Views
Which is why contracts have to be pages and pages long and combed over by bloodsucking lawyers. LiterateDog - 12/10/2010 06:39:18 PM 917 Views
I would agree with you if contracts didn't provide for breaking them. Ghavrel - 12/10/2010 07:33:15 PM 764 Views
Hrm. Sareitha Sedai - 12/10/2010 07:35:38 PM 972 Views
did you take a personal oath in front of god and your loved ones to pay the loan back? *NM* random thoughts - 12/10/2010 08:09:07 PM 434 Views
Let's assume we're talking about a marriage where no such oath was taken... *NM* Sareitha Sedai - 12/10/2010 08:10:54 PM 448 Views
if there is no oath of fidelity then straying would not be immoral *NM* random thoughts - 12/10/2010 08:40:53 PM 415 Views
It's not immoral to break the marriage contract. Ghavrel - 12/10/2010 08:19:50 PM 1030 Views
I don't see that as the flaw in my logic. Sareitha Sedai - 12/10/2010 08:37:52 PM 941 Views
Re: I don't see that as the flaw in my logic. Ghavrel - 12/10/2010 09:00:00 PM 1021 Views
also random thoughts - 12/10/2010 09:37:38 PM 880 Views
That makes no sense whatsoever. Tim - 13/10/2010 11:38:06 PM 1002 Views
That must be why they have you sign something called an agreementory note *NM* Sareitha Sedai - 12/10/2010 07:33:32 PM 457 Views
Exactly *NM* Cannoli - 12/10/2010 07:58:25 PM 425 Views
So, you think bankruptcy laws are immoral? everynametaken - 13/10/2010 12:18:43 AM 907 Views
I don't think it's immoral at all. The contract usually specifies penalties for breach. Tom - 12/10/2010 05:28:34 PM 1019 Views
I thought the answer might be something like that. *NM* Rebekah - 12/10/2010 05:35:35 PM 408 Views
that is close to the way I see it random thoughts - 12/10/2010 05:45:25 PM 857 Views
It's both legal and immoral. LiterateDog - 12/10/2010 06:37:49 PM 945 Views
You didn't mention the third party Roland00 - 12/10/2010 08:26:56 PM 793 Views
in a way I did since I did mention society random thoughts - 12/10/2010 08:54:07 PM 934 Views
Thus the edit Roland00 - 12/10/2010 09:10:53 PM 971 Views
either way I think you made a good point *NM* random thoughts - 12/10/2010 09:38:58 PM 405 Views
will those neighbors... damookster - 14/10/2010 04:52:26 AM 1069 Views
All depends where you get your morals from, really. Nebhead - 12/10/2010 08:28:41 PM 928 Views
I guess what i was trying to ask, at least in part random thoughts - 12/10/2010 09:48:24 PM 893 Views
What if you look at it from the other perspective? Sareitha Sedai - 12/10/2010 09:00:20 PM 942 Views
do you think they would if they had a legal way to do it? random thoughts - 12/10/2010 10:04:57 PM 920 Views
Good point. *NM* Tashmere - 12/10/2010 11:10:26 PM 426 Views
Sure, you could do that. Aeryn - 13/10/2010 01:54:55 AM 950 Views
The problem is that you're buying something today and paying for it for the next 15/30/50 years. Sareitha Sedai - 13/10/2010 03:04:26 PM 827 Views
Much like the concept of morality itself. Gaps - 12/10/2010 11:47:23 PM 862 Views
I find this line particularly interesting. everynametaken - 13/10/2010 12:13:18 AM 891 Views
Dunno. nossy - 13/10/2010 12:56:56 AM 991 Views
As a professional in financial services - no, it is not. Aeryn - 13/10/2010 01:44:18 AM 900 Views
but almost nobody sees it that way random thoughts - 13/10/2010 12:53:25 PM 892 Views
Is the deal that if you default, the bank gets the house and nothing else, though? Legolas - 13/10/2010 02:40:48 PM 883 Views
yes but the bank has a limited ability to collect random thoughts - 13/10/2010 02:47:34 PM 803 Views
I think it's morally wrong to walk away from credit card debt. *NM* Aeryn - 13/10/2010 09:43:11 PM 414 Views
I'm curious how you reconcile that Sareitha Sedai - 13/10/2010 09:47:59 PM 913 Views
Collateral Aeryn - 19/10/2010 07:21:14 PM 1417 Views
I agree, what do you think is different? random thoughts - 13/10/2010 09:59:36 PM 911 Views
The difference is that the bank owns the house. Whereas when I buy stuff, it's mine. *NM* Aeryn - 19/10/2010 07:05:34 PM 400 Views
I too am unable to work out what distinguishes the two situations. Tim - 13/10/2010 11:54:15 PM 848 Views
I lost sleep over it, but I did it anyway. John - 13/10/2010 05:24:19 AM 983 Views
OK what if you take it a step further random thoughts - 13/10/2010 03:44:30 PM 935 Views
Good question John - 14/10/2010 05:13:41 AM 956 Views
I have some questions about this issue. MightyYT - 13/10/2010 08:14:37 AM 917 Views
how do those questions affect the morality of the situation? random thoughts - 13/10/2010 03:20:14 PM 857 Views
Obviously, the essential difference is can't pay versus won't pay. Elaine - 13/10/2010 02:16:07 PM 867 Views
are you socializing your debt when it is a private bank? random thoughts - 13/10/2010 03:14:48 PM 943 Views
You are when said bank requires a bailout. And very many of them do. Elaine - 13/10/2010 03:22:59 PM 885 Views
it is the home fault that the banks have to be bailed out random thoughts - 13/10/2010 03:49:37 PM 933 Views
I believe it immoral to do harm. Macharius - 13/10/2010 04:38:28 PM 957 Views
I really don't understand a system where this could be an advantage. Tim - 13/10/2010 11:16:57 PM 899 Views
There's generally something like a 7 or 10 year limit on credit reporting here. LiterateDog - 13/10/2010 11:46:58 PM 911 Views
What's the use of suing someone who has no money? *NM* Tim - 13/10/2010 11:48:47 PM 474 Views
You can garnish their wages. LiterateDog - 13/10/2010 11:49:36 PM 897 Views
With parsley? Rebekah - 13/10/2010 11:51:37 PM 954 Views
No, "someone" most certainly did not, wicked young Miss! Hmph! *NM* LiterateDog - 13/10/2010 11:52:40 PM 460 Views
If they suddenly come into some, you're entitled to it. *NM* TaskmasterJack - 14/10/2010 12:07:34 AM 540 Views
Bit of a long shot. *NM* Tim - 14/10/2010 12:09:12 AM 404 Views
Very. Best to cover your bases though. *NM* TaskmasterJack - 14/10/2010 10:04:25 PM 426 Views
Not if the doctrine of election applies. Tim - 14/10/2010 10:14:07 PM 866 Views
Are we not talking about credit companies going after people who owe them money? TaskmasterJack - 14/10/2010 10:18:47 PM 914 Views
Yeah, I guess we are. Tim - 14/10/2010 10:28:40 PM 948 Views
Re: Gaps - 14/10/2010 03:09:18 AM 903 Views
I am currently in that situation... damookster - 14/10/2010 05:03:23 AM 1006 Views
In Washington you can contest the assessed value used to determine property taxes. Vodalus - 14/10/2010 07:27:02 AM 940 Views
Re: I am currently in that situation... Macharius - 14/10/2010 05:49:24 PM 1230 Views
it is easy for me and others to be glib when it is just a theory *NM* random thoughts - 14/10/2010 08:19:16 PM 413 Views
If you have the ability to pay, I would consider it yet another immoral act in an immoral industry. Joel - 14/10/2010 07:49:38 AM 923 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes