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!
"Sometimes unhinged, sometimes unfair, always entertaining"
- The Crownless
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Deus Vult!
Is walking away from a mortgage immoral?
- 12/10/2010 04:45:43 PM
1530 Views
Just as a contract is a two way street -
- 12/10/2010 05:12:09 PM
1015 Views
Of course it's immoral.
- 12/10/2010 05:13:16 PM
982 Views
But does one sided morality work?
- 12/10/2010 05:38:56 PM
1099 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
898 Views
A company or organization cannot act morally or immorally? I strongly disagree. *NM*
- 12/10/2010 07:50:42 PM
443 Views
No, it cannot. However the individuals making the decisions for the company can. *NM*
- 12/10/2010 08:48:23 PM
387 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
963 Views
I'm not absolved of my obligations based on the bad behaviors of others.
- 12/10/2010 08:25:33 PM
876 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
1078 Views
That's the only kind of morality there is! What the hell is wrong with you?
- 12/10/2010 08:15:55 PM
928 Views
nothing wrong with me but I think you are off your meds again
- 12/10/2010 09:34:33 PM
919 Views
Re: nothing wrong with me but I think you are off your meds again
- 15/10/2010 02:50:49 PM
1424 Views
well I really can't argue with the wrong is wrong end of story belief system
- 15/10/2010 05:40:22 PM
1117 Views
A contract isn't a promise; it's a legal agreement. *NM*
- 12/10/2010 06:25:24 PM
460 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
961 Views
I would agree with you if contracts didn't provide for breaking them.
- 12/10/2010 07:33:15 PM
810 Views
Hrm.
- 12/10/2010 07:35:38 PM
1033 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
457 Views
Let's assume we're talking about a marriage where no such oath was taken... *NM*
- 12/10/2010 08:10:54 PM
467 Views
if there is no oath of fidelity then straying would not be immoral *NM*
- 12/10/2010 08:40:53 PM
437 Views
It's not immoral to break the marriage contract.
- 12/10/2010 08:19:50 PM
1075 Views
That must be why they have you sign something called an agreementory note 
*NM*
- 12/10/2010 07:33:32 PM
480 Views
*NM*
- 12/10/2010 07:33:32 PM
480 Views
I don't think it's immoral at all. The contract usually specifies penalties for breach.
- 12/10/2010 05:28:34 PM
1064 Views
You didn't mention the third party
- 12/10/2010 08:26:56 PM
839 Views
in a way I did since I did mention society
- 12/10/2010 08:54:07 PM
989 Views
What if you look at it from the other perspective?
- 12/10/2010 09:00:20 PM
1009 Views
Sure, you could do that.
- 13/10/2010 01:54:55 AM
1002 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
897 Views
As a professional in financial services - no, it is not.
- 13/10/2010 01:44:18 AM
944 Views
but almost nobody sees it that way
- 13/10/2010 12:53:25 PM
949 Views
Is the deal that if you default, the bank gets the house and nothing else, though?
- 13/10/2010 02:40:48 PM
931 Views
I think it's morally wrong to walk away from credit card debt. *NM*
- 13/10/2010 09:43:11 PM
433 Views
I agree, what do you think is different?
- 13/10/2010 09:59:36 PM
958 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
432 Views
I too am unable to work out what distinguishes the two situations.
- 13/10/2010 11:54:15 PM
894 Views
I lost sleep over it, but I did it anyway.
- 13/10/2010 05:24:19 AM
1041 Views
Obviously, the essential difference is can't pay versus won't pay.
- 13/10/2010 02:16:07 PM
932 Views
are you socializing your debt when it is a private bank?
- 13/10/2010 03:14:48 PM
987 Views
You are when said bank requires a bailout. And very many of them do.
- 13/10/2010 03:22:59 PM
930 Views
I really don't understand a system where this could be an advantage.
- 13/10/2010 11:16:57 PM
940 Views
There's generally something like a 7 or 10 year limit on credit reporting here.
- 13/10/2010 11:46:58 PM
960 Views
What's the use of suing someone who has no money? *NM*
- 13/10/2010 11:48:47 PM
494 Views
You can garnish their wages.
- 13/10/2010 11:49:36 PM
941 Views
With parsley?
- 13/10/2010 11:51:37 PM
1015 Views
No, "someone" most certainly did not, wicked young Miss! Hmph! *NM*
- 13/10/2010 11:52:40 PM
480 Views
If they suddenly come into some, you're entitled to it. *NM*
- 14/10/2010 12:07:34 AM
558 Views
Bit of a long shot. *NM*
- 14/10/2010 12:09:12 AM
428 Views
Very. Best to cover your bases though. *NM*
- 14/10/2010 10:04:25 PM
449 Views
Not if the doctrine of election applies.
- 14/10/2010 10:14:07 PM
912 Views
Are we not talking about credit companies going after people who owe them money?
- 14/10/2010 10:18:47 PM
964 Views
I am currently in that situation...
- 14/10/2010 05:03:23 AM
1065 Views
In Washington you can contest the assessed value used to determine property taxes.
- 14/10/2010 07:27:02 AM
981 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
434 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
977 Views