It's immoral to break the marriage VOW. That's a terrible analogy.
If you wanted to actually have that apply, you would need a situation in which someone said "I promise that I will pay you" AND had a contract. In both that case and in the case of marriage, what is immoral is breaking a promise. In both cases, you're fufilling the contract.
If you wanted to actually have that apply, you would need a situation in which someone said "I promise that I will pay you" AND had a contract. In both that case and in the case of marriage, what is immoral is breaking a promise. In both cases, you're fufilling the contract.
Every loan document I have ever signed included the phrase "borrwer promises to pay" or some variation thereof. Even if the word "promise" isn't actually used, surely that is the intent?
What I keep saying is that morality is independent of the contract. The absurdity of your marriage hypothetical only proves my point; for your logic to work, it has to be totally fine to cheat on your spouse if you don't have a pre-nup.
I see it as the flaw in yours. I'm the one who would say that cheating on your spouse is immoral whether or not you have a pre-nup
And whether in your marriage you used the words "I promise" or not or said them out loud 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."
"The trophy problem has become extreme."
Is walking away from a mortgage immoral?
- 12/10/2010 04:45:43 PM
1464 Views
Just as a contract is a two way street -
- 12/10/2010 05:12:09 PM
970 Views
Of course it's immoral.
- 12/10/2010 05:13:16 PM
931 Views
But does one sided morality work?
- 12/10/2010 05:38:56 PM
1054 Views
You asked about the morality of walking away when the borrower still has the ability to pay.
- 12/10/2010 07:31:10 PM
851 Views
A company or organization cannot act morally or immorally? I strongly disagree. *NM*
- 12/10/2010 07:50:42 PM
416 Views
No, it cannot. However the individuals making the decisions for the company can. *NM*
- 12/10/2010 08:48:23 PM
364 Views
If banks can not behave in moral manner why should people be expected to behave in moral manner?
- 12/10/2010 08:07:56 PM
921 Views
I'm not absolved of my obligations based on the bad behaviors of others.
- 12/10/2010 08:25:33 PM
835 Views
Because it's their moral obligation. Morality is not a trade, you act morally because it is right
- 12/10/2010 08:47:41 PM
1016 Views
That's the only kind of morality there is! What the hell is wrong with you?
- 12/10/2010 08:15:55 PM
875 Views
nothing wrong with me but I think you are off your meds again
- 12/10/2010 09:34:33 PM
881 Views
Re: nothing wrong with me but I think you are off your meds again
- 15/10/2010 02:50:49 PM
1376 Views
well I really can't argue with the wrong is wrong end of story belief system
- 15/10/2010 05:40:22 PM
1072 Views
A contract isn't a promise; it's a legal agreement. *NM*
- 12/10/2010 06:25:24 PM
437 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
918 Views
I would agree with you if contracts didn't provide for breaking them.
- 12/10/2010 07:33:15 PM
766 Views
Hrm.
- 12/10/2010 07:35:38 PM
974 Views
did you take a personal oath in front of god and your loved ones to pay the loan back? *NM*
- 12/10/2010 08:09:07 PM
435 Views
Let's assume we're talking about a marriage where no such oath was taken... *NM*
- 12/10/2010 08:10:54 PM
448 Views
if there is no oath of fidelity then straying would not be immoral *NM*
- 12/10/2010 08:40:53 PM
416 Views
It's not immoral to break the marriage contract.
- 12/10/2010 08:19:50 PM
1031 Views
I don't see that as the flaw in my logic.
- 12/10/2010 08:37:52 PM
943 Views
That must be why they have you sign something called an agreementory note 
*NM*
- 12/10/2010 07:33:32 PM
458 Views
*NM*
- 12/10/2010 07:33:32 PM
458 Views
I don't think it's immoral at all. The contract usually specifies penalties for breach.
- 12/10/2010 05:28:34 PM
1021 Views
You didn't mention the third party
- 12/10/2010 08:26:56 PM
796 Views
in a way I did since I did mention society
- 12/10/2010 08:54:07 PM
936 Views
What if you look at it from the other perspective?
- 12/10/2010 09:00:20 PM
943 Views
Sure, you could do that.
- 13/10/2010 01:54:55 AM
951 Views
The problem is that you're buying something today and paying for it for the next 15/30/50 years.
- 13/10/2010 03:04:26 PM
829 Views
As a professional in financial services - no, it is not.
- 13/10/2010 01:44:18 AM
901 Views
but almost nobody sees it that way
- 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?
- 13/10/2010 02:40:48 PM
886 Views
I think it's morally wrong to walk away from credit card debt. *NM*
- 13/10/2010 09:43:11 PM
415 Views
I agree, what do you think is different?
- 13/10/2010 09:59:36 PM
912 Views
The difference is that the bank owns the house. Whereas when I buy stuff, it's mine. *NM*
- 19/10/2010 07:05:34 PM
400 Views
I too am unable to work out what distinguishes the two situations.
- 13/10/2010 11:54:15 PM
849 Views
I lost sleep over it, but I did it anyway.
- 13/10/2010 05:24:19 AM
985 Views
Obviously, the essential difference is can't pay versus won't pay.
- 13/10/2010 02:16:07 PM
870 Views
are you socializing your debt when it is a private bank?
- 13/10/2010 03:14:48 PM
944 Views
You are when said bank requires a bailout. And very many of them do.
- 13/10/2010 03:22:59 PM
886 Views
I really don't understand a system where this could be an advantage.
- 13/10/2010 11:16:57 PM
899 Views
There's generally something like a 7 or 10 year limit on credit reporting here.
- 13/10/2010 11:46:58 PM
912 Views
What's the use of suing someone who has no money? *NM*
- 13/10/2010 11:48:47 PM
475 Views
You can garnish their wages.
- 13/10/2010 11:49:36 PM
898 Views
With parsley?
- 13/10/2010 11:51:37 PM
956 Views
No, "someone" most certainly did not, wicked young Miss! Hmph! *NM*
- 13/10/2010 11:52:40 PM
461 Views
If they suddenly come into some, you're entitled to it. *NM*
- 14/10/2010 12:07:34 AM
541 Views
Bit of a long shot. *NM*
- 14/10/2010 12:09:12 AM
405 Views
Very. Best to cover your bases though. *NM*
- 14/10/2010 10:04:25 PM
426 Views
Not if the doctrine of election applies.
- 14/10/2010 10:14:07 PM
868 Views
Are we not talking about credit companies going after people who owe them money?
- 14/10/2010 10:18:47 PM
917 Views
I am currently in that situation...
- 14/10/2010 05:03:23 AM
1009 Views
In Washington you can contest the assessed value used to determine property taxes.
- 14/10/2010 07:27:02 AM
940 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
414 Views
If you have the ability to pay, I would consider it yet another immoral act in an immoral industry.
- 14/10/2010 07:49:38 AM
924 Views