Active Users:1220 Time:23/11/2024 04:41:04 AM
That makes no sense whatsoever. Tim Send a noteboard - 13/10/2010 11:38:06 PM
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.
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.
Reply to message
Is walking away from a mortgage immoral? - 12/10/2010 04:45:43 PM 1373 Views
Just as a contract is a two way street - - 12/10/2010 05:12:09 PM 872 Views
do we have a moral obligation to society? - 12/10/2010 06:00:17 PM 867 Views
It's a good question - 14/10/2010 02:41:21 AM 781 Views
Sort of have to disagree... - 13/10/2010 02:52:07 AM 818 Views
That's not true actually - 14/10/2010 02:35:43 AM 767 Views
Of course it's immoral. - 12/10/2010 05:13:16 PM 843 Views
But does one sided morality work? - 12/10/2010 05:38:56 PM 962 Views
That's the only kind of morality there is! What the hell is wrong with you? - 12/10/2010 08:15:55 PM 789 Views
nothing wrong with me but I think you are off your meds again - 12/10/2010 09:34:33 PM 783 Views
Re: nothing wrong with me but I think you are off your meds again - 15/10/2010 02:50:49 PM 1281 Views
well I really can't argue with the wrong is wrong end of story belief system - 15/10/2010 05:40:22 PM 983 Views
A contract isn't a promise; it's a legal agreement. *NM* - 12/10/2010 06:25:24 PM 407 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 821 Views
I would agree with you if contracts didn't provide for breaking them. - 12/10/2010 07:33:15 PM 679 Views
Hrm. - 12/10/2010 07:35:38 PM 886 Views
It's not immoral to break the marriage contract. - 12/10/2010 08:19:50 PM 947 Views
I don't see that as the flaw in my logic. - 12/10/2010 08:37:52 PM 845 Views
Re: I don't see that as the flaw in my logic. - 12/10/2010 09:00:00 PM 938 Views
also - 12/10/2010 09:37:38 PM 792 Views
That makes no sense whatsoever. - 13/10/2010 11:38:06 PM 912 Views
That must be why they have you sign something called an agreementory note *NM* - 12/10/2010 07:33:32 PM 407 Views
Exactly *NM* - 12/10/2010 07:58:25 PM 390 Views
So, you think bankruptcy laws are immoral? - 13/10/2010 12:18:43 AM 829 Views
I don't think it's immoral at all. The contract usually specifies penalties for breach. - 12/10/2010 05:28:34 PM 917 Views
I thought the answer might be something like that. *NM* - 12/10/2010 05:35:35 PM 375 Views
that is close to the way I see it - 12/10/2010 05:45:25 PM 774 Views
It's both legal and immoral. - 12/10/2010 06:37:49 PM 857 Views
You didn't mention the third party - 12/10/2010 08:26:56 PM 703 Views
in a way I did since I did mention society - 12/10/2010 08:54:07 PM 849 Views
Thus the edit - 12/10/2010 09:10:53 PM 876 Views
either way I think you made a good point *NM* - 12/10/2010 09:38:58 PM 373 Views
will those neighbors... - 14/10/2010 04:52:26 AM 979 Views
All depends where you get your morals from, really. - 12/10/2010 08:28:41 PM 836 Views
I guess what i was trying to ask, at least in part - 12/10/2010 09:48:24 PM 800 Views
What if you look at it from the other perspective? - 12/10/2010 09:00:20 PM 855 Views
do you think they would if they had a legal way to do it? - 12/10/2010 10:04:57 PM 830 Views
Good point. *NM* - 12/10/2010 11:10:26 PM 391 Views
Sure, you could do that. - 13/10/2010 01:54:55 AM 856 Views
Much like the concept of morality itself. - 12/10/2010 11:47:23 PM 770 Views
I find this line particularly interesting. - 13/10/2010 12:13:18 AM 792 Views
Dunno. - 13/10/2010 12:56:56 AM 897 Views
As a professional in financial services - no, it is not. - 13/10/2010 01:44:18 AM 805 Views
but almost nobody sees it that way - 13/10/2010 12:53:25 PM 807 Views
Is the deal that if you default, the bank gets the house and nothing else, though? - 13/10/2010 02:40:48 PM 800 Views
yes but the bank has a limited ability to collect - 13/10/2010 02:47:34 PM 713 Views
I think it's morally wrong to walk away from credit card debt. *NM* - 13/10/2010 09:43:11 PM 382 Views
I'm curious how you reconcile that - 13/10/2010 09:47:59 PM 828 Views
Collateral - 19/10/2010 07:21:14 PM 1324 Views
I agree, what do you think is different? - 13/10/2010 09:59:36 PM 830 Views
I lost sleep over it, but I did it anyway. - 13/10/2010 05:24:19 AM 893 Views
OK what if you take it a step further - 13/10/2010 03:44:30 PM 845 Views
Good question - 14/10/2010 05:13:41 AM 862 Views
I have some questions about this issue. - 13/10/2010 08:14:37 AM 815 Views
how do those questions affect the morality of the situation? - 13/10/2010 03:20:14 PM 775 Views
Obviously, the essential difference is can't pay versus won't pay. - 13/10/2010 02:16:07 PM 779 Views
are you socializing your debt when it is a private bank? - 13/10/2010 03:14:48 PM 832 Views
You are when said bank requires a bailout. And very many of them do. - 13/10/2010 03:22:59 PM 792 Views
it is the home fault that the banks have to be bailed out - 13/10/2010 03:49:37 PM 852 Views
I believe it immoral to do harm. - 13/10/2010 04:38:28 PM 866 Views
I really don't understand a system where this could be an advantage. - 13/10/2010 11:16:57 PM 810 Views
There's generally something like a 7 or 10 year limit on credit reporting here. - 13/10/2010 11:46:58 PM 825 Views
What's the use of suing someone who has no money? *NM* - 13/10/2010 11:48:47 PM 440 Views
You can garnish their wages. - 13/10/2010 11:49:36 PM 786 Views
With parsley? - 13/10/2010 11:51:37 PM 876 Views
No, "someone" most certainly did not, wicked young Miss! Hmph! *NM* - 13/10/2010 11:52:40 PM 431 Views
If they suddenly come into some, you're entitled to it. *NM* - 14/10/2010 12:07:34 AM 507 Views
Bit of a long shot. *NM* - 14/10/2010 12:09:12 AM 356 Views
Very. Best to cover your bases though. *NM* - 14/10/2010 10:04:25 PM 378 Views
Not if the doctrine of election applies. - 14/10/2010 10:14:07 PM 773 Views
Are we not talking about credit companies going after people who owe them money? - 14/10/2010 10:18:47 PM 821 Views
Yeah, I guess we are. - 14/10/2010 10:28:40 PM 858 Views
Re: - 14/10/2010 03:09:18 AM 806 Views
I am currently in that situation... - 14/10/2010 05:03:23 AM 906 Views
Re: I am currently in that situation... - 14/10/2010 05:49:24 PM 1145 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 378 Views

Reply to Message