4 ms·

I kind of empathize with you since I did the same...but just because I feel angry, does that dictate what's moral overall? Here's an interesting question. Does

I kind of empathize with you since I did the same...but just because I feel angry, does that dictate what's moral overall? Here's an interesting question. Does someone who served in the military, peace corps, Americacorps or whatever have a higher, "moral high ground," for having served the country, for a super-reduced wage, over one who has not? Using your same logic, we should have anyone who did not do that pay a, "non-participation fee." We really just all live in a society with lots of winners and losers, different personalities, people who were unlucky because they got cancer, others who are descendants of the Rockerfellers, etc. Individual moral decisions, good or bad, don't automatically take precedence over moral decisions about the aggregate.

morgante 10y ago
> Using your same logic, we should have anyone who did not do that pay a, "non-participation fee." Err, we do. It's called taxes, which fund the military. More importantly, joining the peace corps is a choice. Nobody compels you to do it. Taxes are not: if student loans are forgiven, I'm being forced to pay for other people's financial decisions. I find that much more objectionable than my voluntary charitable contributions.
- reader5000 10y ago
  To be fair, you are being forced to pay for your poor investment decisions as a taxpayer. That is, you as the taxpayer are the person who wrote all the terrible loans, wildly inflated tuition, and destroyed the spending capacity of an entire generation of young people. Kids arent making poor financial decisions, theyre just doing what society demands of them to get jobs. It is your financing that makes the system the clusterfuck it is. So yeah, the American taxpayer should be the one to eat it.
- x2398dh1 10y ago
  People in the military pay taxes as well. My argument still stands according to your logic - those who did not participate in the military should pay higher taxes. You may not like being forced into something, I may not like being forced into something, a criminal may not like being put in jail - but there are certain rules on the aggregate which are set up not for the individual, but to benefit society as a whole. There are situations in which the ethics of upholding a society overtake those of an individual (e.g. the prevention of returning to a, "state of nature," argument.) Beyond that, in our situation, there are multiple extenuating circumstances of for-profit universities who had lobbied the Federal Government to gain special treatment which would grant them the capability to be funded via student loans. Those Universities then went on to employ extremely unethical practices, preying on those who did not have the proper background or capacity to choose. Mind you, this was all done with Federal money, sanctioned by your and my tax dollars, which we have no choice in paying, as you stated. What we do have a choice in, is saying that a certain percentage of student loans should be forgiven due to extenuating circumstances such as unethical for-profit educational institutions, educational institutions such as ITTTI which went out of business, etc. I think the underlying assumption that people are making here on this discussion is falling prey to the, "slippery slope," fallacy in that ALL student debt should be forgiven, when in reality perhaps only a certain percentage should be, due to the high incidence of unethical educational institution degree-awarding growth which occurred subsequent to the 2008 economic collapse. What you will see on here is a lot of people making appeals to the economic benefits of making a decision which benefits a larger aggregate of the population. If you can't stomach that, then you should at least watch the latest Frontline Documentary on For-Profit Schools, and read the Wikipedia Articles on various for-profit schools which have recently gone out of business, like ITTTI.
  - morgante 10y ago
    If you think that student loans should be forgiven, put your money where your mouth is and pay off people's loans for them. Unless you're willing to do that, please don't force me to. Like I said in my original comment, the government shouldn't be in the business of student loans in the first place. If it weren't, a lot of these for-profit schools wouldn't exist (because private lenders would realize that they're bad credit risks).

morgante 10y ago

> Using your same logic, we should have anyone who did not do that pay a, "non-participation fee." Err, we do. It's called taxes, which fund the military. More importantly, joining the peace corps is a choice. Nobody compels you to do it. Taxes are not: if student loans are forgiven, I'm being forced to pay for other people's financial decisions. I find that much more objectionable than my voluntary charitable contributions.

reader5000 10y ago
To be fair, you are being forced to pay for your poor investment decisions as a taxpayer. That is, you as the taxpayer are the person who wrote all the terrible loans, wildly inflated tuition, and destroyed the spending capacity of an entire generation of young people. Kids arent making poor financial decisions, theyre just doing what society demands of them to get jobs. It is your financing that makes the system the clusterfuck it is. So yeah, the American taxpayer should be the one to eat it.
x2398dh1 10y ago
People in the military pay taxes as well. My argument still stands according to your logic - those who did not participate in the military should pay higher taxes. You may not like being forced into something, I may not like being forced into something, a criminal may not like being put in jail - but there are certain rules on the aggregate which are set up not for the individual, but to benefit society as a whole. There are situations in which the ethics of upholding a society overtake those of an individual (e.g. the prevention of returning to a, "state of nature," argument.) Beyond that, in our situation, there are multiple extenuating circumstances of for-profit universities who had lobbied the Federal Government to gain special treatment which would grant them the capability to be funded via student loans. Those Universities then went on to employ extremely unethical practices, preying on those who did not have the proper background or capacity to choose. Mind you, this was all done with Federal money, sanctioned by your and my tax dollars, which we have no choice in paying, as you stated. What we do have a choice in, is saying that a certain percentage of student loans should be forgiven due to extenuating circumstances such as unethical for-profit educational institutions, educational institutions such as ITTTI which went out of business, etc. I think the underlying assumption that people are making here on this discussion is falling prey to the, "slippery slope," fallacy in that ALL student debt should be forgiven, when in reality perhaps only a certain percentage should be, due to the high incidence of unethical educational institution degree-awarding growth which occurred subsequent to the 2008 economic collapse. What you will see on here is a lot of people making appeals to the economic benefits of making a decision which benefits a larger aggregate of the population. If you can't stomach that, then you should at least watch the latest Frontline Documentary on For-Profit Schools, and read the Wikipedia Articles on various for-profit schools which have recently gone out of business, like ITTTI.
- morgante 10y ago
  If you think that student loans should be forgiven, put your money where your mouth is and pay off people's loans for them. Unless you're willing to do that, please don't force me to. Like I said in my original comment, the government shouldn't be in the business of student loans in the first place. If it weren't, a lot of these for-profit schools wouldn't exist (because private lenders would realize that they're bad credit risks).