Imagine you're about to make a contract. Being an experienced businessman, you know contracts sometimes get broken, and not always due to the breaker's fault. Knowing this, you can either risk having to go to court and have a judge decide what the consequences should be (potentially a very expensive option), or you could have the good sense to make what's known as a "reasonable pre-estimate of damages" beforehand, and save both sides the hassle of litigation in the event that things do go wrong.
Why does this make it any more or less moral to break the contract? A contract is just a set of promises, made by two or more sides to each other,* which are intended to be legally binding. The fact that you aren't so naive as to think that nobody would ever break a contract (even if forced to by circumstances) doesn't mean you condone breaking it. Whether you think there's any moral obligation to keep a promise made to a bank is, of course, another matter.
You might as well say that it isn't immoral to kill someone, because there's a pre-arranged penalty for doing so, which means the state is happy for you to choose to commit murder as long as you don't mind paying that penalty.
*In Scots law unilateral gratuitous promises are binding, and you can probably have a unilateral contract as well, but I gather American contract law follows the dirty English and doesn't keep people to their word unless there's consideration.
Why does this make it any more or less moral to break the contract? A contract is just a set of promises, made by two or more sides to each other,* which are intended to be legally binding. The fact that you aren't so naive as to think that nobody would ever break a contract (even if forced to by circumstances) doesn't mean you condone breaking it. Whether you think there's any moral obligation to keep a promise made to a bank is, of course, another matter.
You might as well say that it isn't immoral to kill someone, because there's a pre-arranged penalty for doing so, which means the state is happy for you to choose to commit murder as long as you don't mind paying that penalty.
*In Scots law unilateral gratuitous promises are binding, and you can probably have a unilateral contract as well, but I gather American contract law follows the dirty English and doesn't keep people to their word unless there's consideration.
Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt.
—Nous disons en allemand : le guerre, le mort, le lune, alors que 'soleil' et 'amour' sont du sexe féminin : la soleil, la amour. La vie est neutre.
—La vie ? Neutre ? C'est très joli, et surtout très logique.
—Nous disons en allemand : le guerre, le mort, le lune, alors que 'soleil' et 'amour' sont du sexe féminin : la soleil, la amour. La vie est neutre.
—La vie ? Neutre ? C'est très joli, et surtout très logique.
Is walking away from a mortgage immoral?
12/10/2010 04:45:43 PM
- 1368 Views
Just as a contract is a two way street -
12/10/2010 05:12:09 PM
- 868 Views
Of course it's immoral.
12/10/2010 05:13:16 PM
- 840 Views
But does one sided morality work?
12/10/2010 05:38:56 PM
- 958 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
- 760 Views
A company or organization cannot act morally or immorally? I strongly disagree. *NM*
12/10/2010 07:50:42 PM
- 384 Views
No, it cannot. However the individuals making the decisions for the company can. *NM*
12/10/2010 08:48:23 PM
- 327 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
- 832 Views
I'm not absolved of my obligations based on the bad behaviors of others.
12/10/2010 08:25:33 PM
- 735 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
- 924 Views
That's the only kind of morality there is! What the hell is wrong with you?
12/10/2010 08:15:55 PM
- 785 Views
nothing wrong with me but I think you are off your meds again
12/10/2010 09:34:33 PM
- 777 Views
Re: nothing wrong with me but I think you are off your meds again
15/10/2010 02:50:49 PM
- 1276 Views
well I really can't argue with the wrong is wrong end of story belief system
15/10/2010 05:40:22 PM
- 978 Views
A contract isn't a promise; it's a legal agreement. *NM*
12/10/2010 06:25:24 PM
- 405 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
- 817 Views
I would agree with you if contracts didn't provide for breaking them.
12/10/2010 07:33:15 PM
- 673 Views
Hrm.
12/10/2010 07:35:38 PM
- 881 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
- 394 Views
Let's assume we're talking about a marriage where no such oath was taken... *NM*
12/10/2010 08:10:54 PM
- 408 Views
if there is no oath of fidelity then straying would not be immoral *NM*
12/10/2010 08:40:53 PM
- 381 Views
It's not immoral to break the marriage contract.
12/10/2010 08:19:50 PM
- 940 Views
That makes no sense whatsoever.
13/10/2010 11:38:06 PM
- 905 Views
That must be why they have you sign something called an agreementory note *NM*
12/10/2010 07:33:32 PM
- 405 Views
I don't think it's immoral at all. The contract usually specifies penalties for breach.
12/10/2010 05:28:34 PM
- 910 Views
You didn't mention the third party
12/10/2010 08:26:56 PM
- 700 Views
in a way I did since I did mention society
12/10/2010 08:54:07 PM
- 844 Views
What if you look at it from the other perspective?
12/10/2010 09:00:20 PM
- 848 Views
Sure, you could do that.
13/10/2010 01:54:55 AM
- 851 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
- 735 Views
As a professional in financial services - no, it is not.
13/10/2010 01:44:18 AM
- 800 Views
but almost nobody sees it that way
13/10/2010 12:53:25 PM
- 801 Views
Is the deal that if you default, the bank gets the house and nothing else, though?
13/10/2010 02:40:48 PM
- 795 Views
I think it's morally wrong to walk away from credit card debt. *NM*
13/10/2010 09:43:11 PM
- 379 Views
I agree, what do you think is different?
13/10/2010 09:59:36 PM
- 822 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
- 363 Views
I too am unable to work out what distinguishes the two situations.
13/10/2010 11:54:15 PM
- 757 Views
I lost sleep over it, but I did it anyway.
13/10/2010 05:24:19 AM
- 884 Views
Obviously, the essential difference is can't pay versus won't pay.
13/10/2010 02:16:07 PM
- 775 Views
are you socializing your debt when it is a private bank?
13/10/2010 03:14:48 PM
- 826 Views
You are when said bank requires a bailout. And very many of them do.
13/10/2010 03:22:59 PM
- 786 Views
I really don't understand a system where this could be an advantage.
13/10/2010 11:16:57 PM
- 806 Views
There's generally something like a 7 or 10 year limit on credit reporting here.
13/10/2010 11:46:58 PM
- 822 Views
What's the use of suing someone who has no money? *NM*
13/10/2010 11:48:47 PM
- 438 Views
You can garnish their wages.
13/10/2010 11:49:36 PM
- 781 Views
With parsley?
13/10/2010 11:51:37 PM
- 869 Views
No, "someone" most certainly did not, wicked young Miss! Hmph! *NM*
13/10/2010 11:52:40 PM
- 429 Views
If they suddenly come into some, you're entitled to it. *NM*
14/10/2010 12:07:34 AM
- 504 Views
Bit of a long shot. *NM*
14/10/2010 12:09:12 AM
- 353 Views
Very. Best to cover your bases though. *NM*
14/10/2010 10:04:25 PM
- 373 Views
Not if the doctrine of election applies.
14/10/2010 10:14:07 PM
- 768 Views
Are we not talking about credit companies going after people who owe them money?
14/10/2010 10:18:47 PM
- 817 Views
I am currently in that situation...
14/10/2010 05:03:23 AM
- 899 Views
In Washington you can contest the assessed value used to determine property taxes.
14/10/2010 07:27:02 AM
- 850 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
- 377 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
- 826 Views