Active Users:259 Time:19/04/2025 05:04:39 AM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
You asked about the morality of walking away when the borrower still has the ability to pay. Sareitha Sedai Send a noteboard - 12/10/2010 07:31:10 PM
The banks will operate in what they consider their own best interest without regards to your wellbeing. They will argue that their first obligation is to their stock holders. 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 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? 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.


This presumes that the (loan?) holder's family is not being harmed by continued repayment.

The borrower seeks out the loan from the bank, and promises to repay it. The onus is on the borrower. The bank is held to its standard in the contract as well; it can't just decide that even though you mutually agreed on a 30-year term that they want to get out of the deal so you have to pay them by the end of the week. Yes, the borrower has the legal right to break the contract and face the consequences. Lots of immoral things are legal ;) And lots of rational things are immoral.

Banks are not people. A bank cannot act morally or immorally, and a person paid by and representing a bank has a moral obligation to act in the bank's best interests. A person working for a bank has no obligation in the loan agreement other than meeting the strict terms of the agreed-upon contract.



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."
Reply to message
Is walking away from a mortgage immoral? random thoughts - 12/10/2010 04:45:43 PM 1448 Views
Just as a contract is a two way street - SilverWarder - 12/10/2010 05:12:09 PM 953 Views
do we have a moral obligation to society? random thoughts - 12/10/2010 06:00:17 PM 944 Views
It's a good question SilverWarder - 14/10/2010 02:41:21 AM 855 Views
Sort of have to disagree... Antigone - 13/10/2010 02:52:07 AM 902 Views
That's not true actually SilverWarder - 14/10/2010 02:35:43 AM 845 Views
Of course it's immoral. Sareitha Sedai - 12/10/2010 05:13:16 PM 915 Views
But does one sided morality work? random thoughts - 12/10/2010 05:38:56 PM 1040 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 836 Views
A company or organization cannot act morally or immorally? I strongly disagree. *NM* Legolas - 12/10/2010 07:50:42 PM 411 Views
No, it cannot. However the individuals making the decisions for the company can. *NM* Cannoli - 12/10/2010 08:48:23 PM 358 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 902 Views
I'm not absolved of my obligations based on the bad behaviors of others. Sareitha Sedai - 12/10/2010 08:25:33 PM 818 Views
but who you owe obligations to is a factor random thoughts - 12/10/2010 09:03:04 PM 880 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 1002 Views
you also use reason and logic to decide where your loyalty rest random thoughts - 12/10/2010 09:16:51 PM 899 Views
You have not explained how it IS the banks' fault Cannoli - 15/10/2010 01:30:10 PM 941 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 861 Views
nothing wrong with me but I think you are off your meds again random thoughts - 12/10/2010 09:34:33 PM 864 Views
Re: nothing wrong with me but I think you are off your meds again Cannoli - 15/10/2010 02:50:49 PM 1362 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 1056 Views
A contract isn't a promise; it's a legal agreement. *NM* Ghavrel - 12/10/2010 06:25:24 PM 432 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 901 Views
I would agree with you if contracts didn't provide for breaking them. Ghavrel - 12/10/2010 07:33:15 PM 750 Views
Hrm. Sareitha Sedai - 12/10/2010 07:35:38 PM 960 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 428 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 441 Views
if there is no oath of fidelity then straying would not be immoral *NM* random thoughts - 12/10/2010 08:40:53 PM 411 Views
It's not immoral to break the marriage contract. Ghavrel - 12/10/2010 08:19:50 PM 1012 Views
I don't see that as the flaw in my logic. Sareitha Sedai - 12/10/2010 08:37:52 PM 925 Views
Re: I don't see that as the flaw in my logic. Ghavrel - 12/10/2010 09:00:00 PM 1013 Views
also random thoughts - 12/10/2010 09:37:38 PM 869 Views
That makes no sense whatsoever. Tim - 13/10/2010 11:38:06 PM 983 Views
That must be why they have you sign something called an agreementory note *NM* Sareitha Sedai - 12/10/2010 07:33:32 PM 443 Views
Exactly *NM* Cannoli - 12/10/2010 07:58:25 PM 421 Views
So, you think bankruptcy laws are immoral? everynametaken - 13/10/2010 12:18:43 AM 895 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 1004 Views
I thought the answer might be something like that. *NM* Rebekah - 12/10/2010 05:35:35 PM 401 Views
that is close to the way I see it random thoughts - 12/10/2010 05:45:25 PM 839 Views
It's both legal and immoral. LiterateDog - 12/10/2010 06:37:49 PM 937 Views
You didn't mention the third party Roland00 - 12/10/2010 08:26:56 PM 781 Views
in a way I did since I did mention society random thoughts - 12/10/2010 08:54:07 PM 922 Views
Thus the edit Roland00 - 12/10/2010 09:10:53 PM 957 Views
either way I think you made a good point *NM* random thoughts - 12/10/2010 09:38:58 PM 402 Views
will those neighbors... damookster - 14/10/2010 04:52:26 AM 1058 Views
All depends where you get your morals from, really. Nebhead - 12/10/2010 08:28:41 PM 912 Views
I guess what i was trying to ask, at least in part random thoughts - 12/10/2010 09:48:24 PM 879 Views
What if you look at it from the other perspective? Sareitha Sedai - 12/10/2010 09:00:20 PM 928 Views
do you think they would if they had a legal way to do it? random thoughts - 12/10/2010 10:04:57 PM 904 Views
Good point. *NM* Tashmere - 12/10/2010 11:10:26 PM 421 Views
Sure, you could do that. Aeryn - 13/10/2010 01:54:55 AM 939 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 814 Views
Much like the concept of morality itself. Gaps - 12/10/2010 11:47:23 PM 849 Views
I find this line particularly interesting. everynametaken - 13/10/2010 12:13:18 AM 876 Views
Dunno. nossy - 13/10/2010 12:56:56 AM 979 Views
As a professional in financial services - no, it is not. Aeryn - 13/10/2010 01:44:18 AM 884 Views
but almost nobody sees it that way random thoughts - 13/10/2010 12:53:25 PM 877 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 872 Views
yes but the bank has a limited ability to collect random thoughts - 13/10/2010 02:47:34 PM 789 Views
I think it's morally wrong to walk away from credit card debt. *NM* Aeryn - 13/10/2010 09:43:11 PM 409 Views
I'm curious how you reconcile that Sareitha Sedai - 13/10/2010 09:47:59 PM 898 Views
Collateral Aeryn - 19/10/2010 07:21:14 PM 1399 Views
I agree, what do you think is different? random thoughts - 13/10/2010 09:59:36 PM 897 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 395 Views
I too am unable to work out what distinguishes the two situations. Tim - 13/10/2010 11:54:15 PM 832 Views
I lost sleep over it, but I did it anyway. John - 13/10/2010 05:24:19 AM 972 Views
OK what if you take it a step further random thoughts - 13/10/2010 03:44:30 PM 917 Views
Good question John - 14/10/2010 05:13:41 AM 942 Views
I have some questions about this issue. MightyYT - 13/10/2010 08:14:37 AM 899 Views
how do those questions affect the morality of the situation? random thoughts - 13/10/2010 03:20:14 PM 844 Views
Obviously, the essential difference is can't pay versus won't pay. Elaine - 13/10/2010 02:16:07 PM 855 Views
are you socializing your debt when it is a private bank? random thoughts - 13/10/2010 03:14:48 PM 931 Views
You are when said bank requires a bailout. And very many of them do. Elaine - 13/10/2010 03:22:59 PM 876 Views
it is the home fault that the banks have to be bailed out random thoughts - 13/10/2010 03:49:37 PM 922 Views
I believe it immoral to do harm. Macharius - 13/10/2010 04:38:28 PM 947 Views
I really don't understand a system where this could be an advantage. Tim - 13/10/2010 11:16:57 PM 886 Views
There's generally something like a 7 or 10 year limit on credit reporting here. LiterateDog - 13/10/2010 11:46:58 PM 898 Views
What's the use of suing someone who has no money? *NM* Tim - 13/10/2010 11:48:47 PM 469 Views
You can garnish their wages. LiterateDog - 13/10/2010 11:49:36 PM 874 Views
With parsley? Rebekah - 13/10/2010 11:51:37 PM 940 Views
No, "someone" most certainly did not, wicked young Miss! Hmph! *NM* LiterateDog - 13/10/2010 11:52:40 PM 457 Views
If they suddenly come into some, you're entitled to it. *NM* TaskmasterJack - 14/10/2010 12:07:34 AM 535 Views
Bit of a long shot. *NM* Tim - 14/10/2010 12:09:12 AM 398 Views
Very. Best to cover your bases though. *NM* TaskmasterJack - 14/10/2010 10:04:25 PM 419 Views
Not if the doctrine of election applies. Tim - 14/10/2010 10:14:07 PM 855 Views
Are we not talking about credit companies going after people who owe them money? TaskmasterJack - 14/10/2010 10:18:47 PM 896 Views
Yeah, I guess we are. Tim - 14/10/2010 10:28:40 PM 936 Views
Re: Gaps - 14/10/2010 03:09:18 AM 887 Views
I am currently in that situation... damookster - 14/10/2010 05:03:23 AM 987 Views
In Washington you can contest the assessed value used to determine property taxes. Vodalus - 14/10/2010 07:27:02 AM 929 Views
Re: I am currently in that situation... Macharius - 14/10/2010 05:49:24 PM 1218 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 408 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 908 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes