Active Users:1106 Time:14/11/2024 06:15:50 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 1368 Views
Just as a contract is a two way street - - 12/10/2010 05:12:09 PM 869 Views
do we have a moral obligation to society? - 12/10/2010 06:00:17 PM 864 Views
It's a good question - 14/10/2010 02:41:21 AM 778 Views
Sort of have to disagree... - 13/10/2010 02:52:07 AM 813 Views
That's not true actually - 14/10/2010 02:35:43 AM 762 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 959 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 780 Views
Re: nothing wrong with me but I think you are off your meds again - 15/10/2010 02:50:49 PM 1277 Views
well I really can't argue with the wrong is wrong end of story belief system - 15/10/2010 05:40:22 PM 980 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 675 Views
Hrm. - 12/10/2010 07:35:38 PM 883 Views
It's not immoral to break the marriage contract. - 12/10/2010 08:19:50 PM 942 Views
I don't see that as the flaw in my logic. - 12/10/2010 08:37:52 PM 840 Views
Re: I don't see that as the flaw in my logic. - 12/10/2010 09:00:00 PM 933 Views
also - 12/10/2010 09:37:38 PM 787 Views
That makes no sense whatsoever. - 13/10/2010 11:38:06 PM 908 Views
That must be why they have you sign something called an agreementory note *NM* - 12/10/2010 07:33:32 PM 405 Views
Exactly *NM* - 12/10/2010 07:58:25 PM 388 Views
So, you think bankruptcy laws are immoral? - 13/10/2010 12:18:43 AM 826 Views
I don't think it's immoral at all. The contract usually specifies penalties for breach. - 12/10/2010 05:28:34 PM 912 Views
I thought the answer might be something like that. *NM* - 12/10/2010 05:35:35 PM 373 Views
that is close to the way I see it - 12/10/2010 05:45:25 PM 770 Views
It's both legal and immoral. - 12/10/2010 06:37:49 PM 854 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 847 Views
Thus the edit - 12/10/2010 09:10:53 PM 872 Views
either way I think you made a good point *NM* - 12/10/2010 09:38:58 PM 372 Views
will those neighbors... - 14/10/2010 04:52:26 AM 975 Views
All depends where you get your morals from, really. - 12/10/2010 08:28:41 PM 832 Views
I guess what i was trying to ask, at least in part - 12/10/2010 09:48:24 PM 797 Views
What if you look at it from the other perspective? - 12/10/2010 09:00:20 PM 850 Views
do you think they would if they had a legal way to do it? - 12/10/2010 10:04:57 PM 826 Views
Good point. *NM* - 12/10/2010 11:10:26 PM 389 Views
Sure, you could do that. - 13/10/2010 01:54:55 AM 853 Views
Much like the concept of morality itself. - 12/10/2010 11:47:23 PM 767 Views
I find this line particularly interesting. - 13/10/2010 12:13:18 AM 788 Views
Dunno. - 13/10/2010 12:56:56 AM 893 Views
As a professional in financial services - no, it is not. - 13/10/2010 01:44:18 AM 802 Views
but almost nobody sees it that way - 13/10/2010 12:53:25 PM 804 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
yes but the bank has a limited ability to collect - 13/10/2010 02:47:34 PM 710 Views
I think it's morally wrong to walk away from credit card debt. *NM* - 13/10/2010 09:43:11 PM 380 Views
I'm curious how you reconcile that - 13/10/2010 09:47:59 PM 825 Views
Collateral - 19/10/2010 07:21:14 PM 1321 Views
I agree, what do you think is different? - 13/10/2010 09:59:36 PM 826 Views
I lost sleep over it, but I did it anyway. - 13/10/2010 05:24:19 AM 887 Views
OK what if you take it a step further - 13/10/2010 03:44:30 PM 840 Views
Good question - 14/10/2010 05:13:41 AM 858 Views
I have some questions about this issue. - 13/10/2010 08:14:37 AM 812 Views
how do those questions affect the morality of the situation? - 13/10/2010 03:20:14 PM 771 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 829 Views
You are when said bank requires a bailout. And very many of them do. - 13/10/2010 03:22:59 PM 787 Views
it is the home fault that the banks have to be bailed out - 13/10/2010 03:49:37 PM 849 Views
I believe it immoral to do harm. - 13/10/2010 04:38:28 PM 862 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 783 Views
With parsley? - 13/10/2010 11:51:37 PM 871 Views
No, "someone" most certainly did not, wicked young Miss! Hmph! *NM* - 13/10/2010 11:52:40 PM 430 Views
If they suddenly come into some, you're entitled to it. *NM* - 14/10/2010 12:07:34 AM 505 Views
Bit of a long shot. *NM* - 14/10/2010 12:09:12 AM 355 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 769 Views
Are we not talking about credit companies going after people who owe them money? - 14/10/2010 10:18:47 PM 817 Views
Yeah, I guess we are. - 14/10/2010 10:28:40 PM 855 Views
Re: - 14/10/2010 03:09:18 AM 803 Views
I am currently in that situation... - 14/10/2010 05:03:23 AM 902 Views
Re: I am currently in that situation... - 14/10/2010 05:49:24 PM 1141 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

Reply to Message