4 ms·
The agreement was entered into with both parties understanding the risks and consequences of default and actions to be taken in such an event were clearly outli
by imgabe 12y ago
The agreement was entered into with both parties understanding the risks and consequences of default and actions to be taken in such an event were clearly outlined. If all that is understood in advance, what is immoral about taking that option instead of repaying?
You didn't make a "promise" to repay the bank. You signed a contract. As long as you adhere to the terms of that contract you're morally clear.
If you loan me $50 and we agree that either I'll pay you back OR you get to punch me in the face, you can't complain about losing the money if I choose the punch in the face, and there's nothing immoral about that option since we both agreed to it in the beginning.
- mikeash 12y agoI don't think that adhering to a contract is automatically moral no matter what the contract says or how you adhere to it. The argument that it must be moral because you both agreed to it beforehand is a non sequitur to me.
- imgabe 12y ago"Moral" is, at best, subjective. Personally, I think if two people agree to something, then sticking to the terms of that agreement is moral, and trying to change them after the fact when things don't work out in your favor is not. As long as there was nothing inherently immoral in the agreement to begin with, I don't see how sticking to it could possibly be immoral.
- mikeash 12y agoIf it's subjective then I'd say it's silly to declare that a mortgage can't have a moral dimension. If you think it doesn't, fine, but it's weird to say that it can't.