People are bending over backwards to disassociate themselves from the act of borrowing. By their reasoning (spin, really), if the act of borrowing is a separate act, then it is "amoral" because a non-human act doesn't have a conscience. The non-human act can do whatever it wants. That leaves their conscience free and clear.
Problem is, the issue doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with the act specifically, and everything to do with one's own promise to repay*. The promise on on YOU, and only you. They're only kidding themselves when they try to spin it away.
This mindset is not unlike the thinking behind civil asset forfeiture. The person doesn't have to be burdened with guilt/innocence. No, the property is guilty. This is the only way they... enforcers in this case... can spin it wildly enough to justify it in their own conscience.
Point 2: Prior to this thread I would not have guessed that political lean would be so definitive on an issue like this. That has been eye-opening.
*- Disclaimer: Dire circumstances requiring bankruptcy and similar not included. There are legitimate times when circumstances spin out of a person's control, but those are the exception, not the general rule.