View Poll Results: Is there a moral obligation to repay money you borrow?

Voters
319. You may not vote on this poll
  • If you borrow money, you are morally obligated to repay it.

    110 34.48%
  • I feel no moral obligation to repay loans I've taken out

    209 65.52%
Page 78 of 91 FirstFirst ... 2868767778798088 ... LastLast
Results 771 to 780 of 906

Thread: Are you morally obligated to repay a loan that you take?[W:461]

  1. #771
    Educator
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Last Seen
    07-18-15 @ 02:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    731

    Re: Are you morally obligated to repay a loan that you take?[W:461]

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    Fine. Loans. Byt we're not talking about how your crappy credit rating affects you for yrs to come.

    We are talking about the business having a business model that spreads that default and loss of interest, etc across all other people that do business with that institution.
    No, not quite. As I explained before, they only spread the cost to other people with similar credit scores. So, defaulters pay for the other defaulters and non-defaulters don't have to pay for defaults.

  2. #772
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    30,019

    Re: Are you morally obligated to repay a loan that you take?[W:461]

    Quote Originally Posted by tuhaybey View Post
    No, not quite. As I explained before, they only spread the cost to other people with similar credit scores. So, defaulters pay for the other defaulters and non-defaulters don't have to pay for defaults.
    So then according to me, IMO...as per the OP's question...that is not moral behavior.

    People can have bad credit scores for alot of reasons, including medical debt.

    So. Another rationalization.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  3. #773
    Sage
    AlbqOwl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Mexico
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,576
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Are you morally obligated to repay a loan that you take?[W:461]

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    I agree, if we borrow money based on anyone's "good faith" then we have a moral obligation to repay the loan. But a loan in a commercial setting, such as a mortgage, isn't being made on good faith. It's a business contract, and that contract has collateral, mortgage insurance in some cases, remedies in the event of default, etc. I've just not heard any explanation why this contract is fundamentally different than any other.

    I'm watching basketball - our coach is under a five year contract. He promises recruits he'll be their coach next year, and the next. etc. But if he gets a better offer, he'll leave, the next school will pay a large penalty for breaking that contract, and not one person will assert he has a moral obligation to harm his family's financial future and stay at the local university. Where is the principled difference between that and defaulting on a mortgage? Would any Fortune 500 company citing morality or ethical principle remain in a contract, repay a loan, if it's in the interests of shareholders to terminate the contract or default on a loan? Of course not.
    Whenever we sign a contract promising to repay a loan, that is accepting a loan in good faith. It doesn't matter who is loaning the money.
    "I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776

  4. #774
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    Re: Are you morally obligated to repay a loan that you take?[W:461]

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    for purposes of discussing the topic of this thread, the morality of financial repayment, the link should be obvious
    You're bullchittin' us, aincha? The question statement you were responding to was:

    If you think there is any correlation between a contract on your home and a cell phone contract, you aren't being serious in this discussion.
    And you're trying to tell us that you worked in the financial sector but can't for the life of you figure out why a cell phone contract and a mortgage aren't comparable? Tell ya what. Since you don't know, I'll help you out. A mortgage is a SECURED LOAN. It is a FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT. A cell phone agreement is... well... a cell phone agreement. It isn't a loan. There's no interest. There's only a service contract for x-amount of time. And you can cancel whenever you wish and pay the balance of the contract plus penalty. But you're GOING to pay. It's not a mortgage. It's not a loan. And your phone isn't collateral. Any bills you decide you're just going to refuse to pay go typically into collections but all bills are not loans. If you have a mental challenge comprehending the differences there, then that would explain your challenges in this discussion - or as Tres Borrachos said, you may simply not be serious in this discussion.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  5. #775
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    Re: Are you morally obligated to repay a loan that you take?[W:461]

    Quote Originally Posted by tuhaybey View Post
    No, not quite. As I explained before, they only spread the cost to other people with similar credit scores. So, defaulters pay for the other defaulters and non-defaulters don't have to pay for defaults.
    These bankruptcies were the foundation of the financial crisis and subsequent "great recession". We ALL paid for these defaults.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  6. #776
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Last Seen
    12-19-15 @ 10:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    1,234

    Re: Are you morally obligated to repay a loan that you take?

    Yes. But if it is beyond the person to pay then grace or forgiveness is needed. For example Greek debt is unrealistic. It can't be paid. It must be forgiven. At least most of it. Corporations go bankrupt all the time. So do individuals. Sometimes a nation defaults.

  7. #777
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,861

    Re: Are you morally obligated to repay a loan that you take?[W:461]

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    No one said businesses are moral. That's not what the OP asked. Businesses are based on law and contracts. Not morality.
    Right but if I as an individual have moral responsibilities to fulfill my end of a loan contract, I can't avoid that by incorporating and having the "business" borrow money. The law respects that an LLC or corp is a separate entity from the owners for purposes of legal liability for loans and losses, but I can't imagine morality will follow the letter of the law and mandate repayment if an individual or sole proprietor but NOT if an LLC/LLP/Corporation, etc.

    And that's my point - if you accept that 'businesses' are amoral and you appear to, then I see no reason why an individual on the opposite side of a contract with an amoral, profit maximizing 'business' has a uniquely moral duty with regard to that contract that the 'business' does not share. I think their "moral" obligations are identical - maximize profits.

    One other point - conflating "cheating, fraud, and non-payment" is illegitimate. Remedies for default are outlined in the loan document that both parties agreed to, and there is no fraud for a party to default and accept those terms - lose the house, ruin credit, generally allow the lender to sue for any shortfall if the collateral is insufficient to pay the loan, perhaps a bankruptcy filing, etc.

  8. #778
    Sage
    Papa bull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-25-15 @ 01:35 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,927

    Re: Are you morally obligated to repay a loan that you take?[W:461]

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    Right but if I as an individual have moral responsibilities to fulfill my end of a loan contract, I can't avoid that by incorporating and having the "business" borrow money. The law respects that an LLC or corp is a separate entity from the owners for purposes of legal liability for loans and losses, but I can't imagine morality will follow the letter of the law and mandate repayment if an individual or sole proprietor but NOT if an LLC/LLP/Corporation, etc.

    And that's my point - if you accept that 'businesses' are amoral and you appear to, then I see no reason why an individual on the opposite side of a contract with an amoral, profit maximizing 'business' has a uniquely moral duty with regard to that contract that the 'business' does not share. I think their "moral" obligations are identical - maximize profits.

    One other point - conflating "cheating, fraud, and non-payment" is illegitimate. Remedies for default are outlined in the loan document that both parties agreed to, and there is no fraud for a party to default and accept those terms - lose the house, ruin credit, generally allow the lender to sue for any shortfall if the collateral is insufficient to pay the loan, perhaps a bankruptcy filing, etc.
    You have a moral responsibility to uphold your end of agreements. You may not be legally bound by a moral responsibility and you may at immorally if you wish but sticking other people with YOUR debts is immoral. Doing it "for profit", if anything, makes it even less moral.

    You seem to believe that a corporation must do whatever is most profitable for shareholders no matter how immoral or unethical it is and you are incorrect about that. Most businesses are quite ethical and follow through on their agreements and pay their debts. Arguing that it's OK for you to refuse to pay your debts because "other people do it, too" doesn't exonerate you for doing it.

    When you owe money and you respond to your creditor as follows: "My house isn't worth what I bought it for, so I'm not paying back my loan. You can just sue me", your behavior is immoral. And the fact that they can sue you doesn't make it any more moral.
    You can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

  9. #779
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,861

    Re: Are you morally obligated to repay a loan that you take?[W:461]

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    I criticize coaches and players all the time for wanting to either break a contract and/or renegotiate. If anything, this is a scenario where the team/business has more moral integrity than the coach or player that everybody loves. (That's the rub, isn't it? We like the player/coach, just like we like ourselves, so we're willing to rationalize for them.) If the player or coach bombs, the team is still expected to pay, and they do. Why don't we expect the same level of integrity from the player or coach?
    It's not integrity, it's business. The teams EXPECT coaches to leave if a better opportunity comes along and build the costs of the coach leaving into the contract. And those terms are negotiated - it's a straightforward, arms length deal. The team "isn't expected to pay and they do" - they do no more or less than is REQUIRED by the contract, same as the coach or player.

    They want the security of the long-term contract when they sign it. Maybe if they want flexibility they shouldn't sign a long-term deal and go just 1 to 2 years at a time. I would approve if teams/businesses started denying these requests. Both sides should be held to their negotiated deal. If they don't want to be 'stuck', they should sign shorter deals.
    That's a perfect summary of the obligations we have to contracts - the terms of the negotiated deal.

  10. #780
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:23 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,438

    Re: Are you morally obligated to repay a loan that you take?[W:461]

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    It's not integrity, it's business. The teams EXPECT coaches to leave if a better opportunity comes along and build the costs of the coach leaving into the contract. And those terms are negotiated - it's a straightforward, arms length deal. The team "isn't expected to pay and they do" - they do no more or less than is REQUIRED by the contract, same as the coach or player.

    That's a perfect summary of the obligations we have to contracts - the terms of the negotiated deal.
    Your first paragraph is wholly incorrect. Your second paragraph confirms that your first paragraph is incorrect.

    Player A and Team X sign a contract for 5 years at $1m/yr.

    Scenario 1: Player A takes off and becomes a superstar. Two years into it, if Player A were signing a contract now he'd get $5m/yr. He demands to renegotiate. Happens all the time.

    Scenario 2: Player A tanks. Same two years, if Player A were signing a contract now he would not even be offered a contract, he's that bad. Does the team demand to renegotiate? No, they don't. They pay it because it's a contract. That's what contracts are.

    These two scenarios play out in the sports world all the time, and each have become the norm. Why are we ok with one side being held to their contract... their word... and not the other side?

    Under your claims, in Scenario 2 the team would be justified in not paying the remaining three years because it's "just business". They're no longer getting what they paid for. They're "underwater", to use the mortgage analogy. Correct? Yes, if you're intellectually consistent, that will be your opinion.

    Or, in Scenario 1, you would favor the player sucking it up and honoring his contract as agreed to. Correct? Again yes, if you're intellectually honest, that will be your opinion.

    If you're not intellectually honest, you'll try to find some way for Player A to be able to weasel out of it and not be held to his end of the deal, while still expecting the team to be held to their end.
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

Page 78 of 91 FirstFirst ... 2868767778798088 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •