Active Users:378 Time:17/06/2025 07:16:07 AM
nothing wrong with me but I think you are off your meds again random thoughts Send a noteboard - 12/10/2010 09:34:33 PM

The banks will operate in what they consider their own best interest without regards to your wellbeing.

Your point being?


My point being why would yu not do what is in your best interest without regards to them? Are you a sheep that will alow his moral code to be used to lead him to slaughter without even questioning it?

I think is funny, just not in a haha sort of way, that you ask my point but then ignored it a couple of line down. The banks first obligationis to the shareholdres, shouldn't yours be to your family? Is it moral to let pride keep you from meeting that obligation by not doing what is in their best interest?

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

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


I owe no obligation to their stockholders. If they can do whatever is legal to advance their interest why should regular people feel a moral obligation to not do the same?

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.


That is a stupid argument since murder is not legal.

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.


The actions of others do not affect my morality but they do affect how I act towards them. I believe in treating people with respect, until they disrespect me. If banks choose to do whatever is legal why would I not be willing to play by the rules they set?

I think there are some moral questions about what affect your actions have on society as a whole but I really don't think there are any good arguments that you have moral obligation towards the bank. I legal obligation but not a moral one.

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.


And the bank would seize my assets if they thought doing so was in their best interest and they could legally do so. They would think they had a moral obligation to shareholders to do so. It is not bullshit speculation it is simple observations.
Reply to message
Is walking away from a mortgage immoral? - 12/10/2010 04:45:43 PM 1465 Views
Just as a contract is a two way street - - 12/10/2010 05:12:09 PM 971 Views
do we have a moral obligation to society? - 12/10/2010 06:00:17 PM 962 Views
It's a good question - 14/10/2010 02:41:21 AM 869 Views
Sort of have to disagree... - 13/10/2010 02:52:07 AM 930 Views
That's not true actually - 14/10/2010 02:35:43 AM 862 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 1055 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 883 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 1073 Views
A contract isn't a promise; it's a legal agreement. *NM* - 12/10/2010 06:25:24 PM 438 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 919 Views
I would agree with you if contracts didn't provide for breaking them. - 12/10/2010 07:33:15 PM 768 Views
Hrm. - 12/10/2010 07:35:38 PM 974 Views
It's not immoral to break the marriage contract. - 12/10/2010 08:19:50 PM 1032 Views
I don't see that as the flaw in my logic. - 12/10/2010 08:37:52 PM 944 Views
Re: I don't see that as the flaw in my logic. - 12/10/2010 09:00:00 PM 1023 Views
also - 12/10/2010 09:37:38 PM 884 Views
That makes no sense whatsoever. - 13/10/2010 11:38:06 PM 1004 Views
That must be why they have you sign something called an agreementory note *NM* - 12/10/2010 07:33:32 PM 459 Views
Exactly *NM* - 12/10/2010 07:58:25 PM 426 Views
So, you think bankruptcy laws are immoral? - 13/10/2010 12:18:43 AM 909 Views
I don't think it's immoral at all. The contract usually specifies penalties for breach. - 12/10/2010 05:28:34 PM 1023 Views
I thought the answer might be something like that. *NM* - 12/10/2010 05:35:35 PM 408 Views
that is close to the way I see it - 12/10/2010 05:45:25 PM 859 Views
It's both legal and immoral. - 12/10/2010 06:37:49 PM 947 Views
You didn't mention the third party - 12/10/2010 08:26:56 PM 797 Views
in a way I did since I did mention society - 12/10/2010 08:54:07 PM 938 Views
Thus the edit - 12/10/2010 09:10:53 PM 973 Views
either way I think you made a good point *NM* - 12/10/2010 09:38:58 PM 406 Views
will those neighbors... - 14/10/2010 04:52:26 AM 1071 Views
All depends where you get your morals from, really. - 12/10/2010 08:28:41 PM 930 Views
I guess what i was trying to ask, at least in part - 12/10/2010 09:48:24 PM 896 Views
What if you look at it from the other perspective? - 12/10/2010 09:00:20 PM 944 Views
do you think they would if they had a legal way to do it? - 12/10/2010 10:04:57 PM 923 Views
Good point. *NM* - 12/10/2010 11:10:26 PM 426 Views
Sure, you could do that. - 13/10/2010 01:54:55 AM 953 Views
Much like the concept of morality itself. - 12/10/2010 11:47:23 PM 864 Views
I find this line particularly interesting. - 13/10/2010 12:13:18 AM 893 Views
Dunno. - 13/10/2010 12:56:56 AM 993 Views
As a professional in financial services - no, it is not. - 13/10/2010 01:44:18 AM 902 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 888 Views
yes but the bank has a limited ability to collect - 13/10/2010 02:47:34 PM 805 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'm curious how you reconcile that - 13/10/2010 09:47:59 PM 915 Views
Collateral - 19/10/2010 07:21:14 PM 1417 Views
I agree, what do you think is different? - 13/10/2010 09:59:36 PM 913 Views
I lost sleep over it, but I did it anyway. - 13/10/2010 05:24:19 AM 986 Views
OK what if you take it a step further - 13/10/2010 03:44:30 PM 939 Views
Good question - 14/10/2010 05:13:41 AM 958 Views
I have some questions about this issue. - 13/10/2010 08:14:37 AM 918 Views
how do those questions affect the morality of the situation? - 13/10/2010 03:20:14 PM 860 Views
Obviously, the essential difference is can't pay versus won't pay. - 13/10/2010 02:16:07 PM 871 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 887 Views
it is the home fault that the banks have to be bailed out - 13/10/2010 03:49:37 PM 935 Views
I believe it immoral to do harm. - 13/10/2010 04:38:28 PM 960 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 913 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 899 Views
With parsley? - 13/10/2010 11:51:37 PM 958 Views
No, "someone" most certainly did not, wicked young Miss! Hmph! *NM* - 13/10/2010 11:52:40 PM 462 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 406 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 869 Views
Are we not talking about credit companies going after people who owe them money? - 14/10/2010 10:18:47 PM 918 Views
Yeah, I guess we are. - 14/10/2010 10:28:40 PM 950 Views
Re: - 14/10/2010 03:09:18 AM 906 Views
I am currently in that situation... - 14/10/2010 05:03:23 AM 1010 Views
Re: I am currently in that situation... - 14/10/2010 05:49:24 PM 1232 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 415 Views

Reply to Message