• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Is there a moral obligation to repay money you borrow?


  • Total voters
    98
Re: Are you morally obligated to repay a loan that you take?

Banks are evil. :roll:, ok. Yet we ALL run to them when we want to finance something beyond our ability (or desire) to pay for outright. Whether noble intent on their part or not, they do us the favor of allowing us to upgrade our lifestyle, yet some of us think it's just fine to not return the favor and pay them back.
 
If you borrow money, do you feel there is a moral obligation to repay the money you borrowed?

Yes. In addition to the legal one. Even if it takes a lifetime to do so, it must be paid back. One's character is the cornerstone of their being.
 
Re: Are you morally obligated to repay a loan that you take?

That is the problem. You, apparently think that if money is involved, morality doesn't apply. "Oh, well, that is business and the morality of doing what you say, fulfilling your obligations and being true to your word isn't a moral consideration of it's "just business".

That is classic sociopathy. There is no conscience bother if it is "just business" when you lie, cheat or steal". That's a big problem. This isn't about the morality of the lender. When they cut the duck, they've fulfilled their obligation. Their morality isn't the problem here. Yours is the issue and this sentiment that it is on to screw someone over in business is an immoral one.

Let me guess, though. You would argue that "business is corrupt so you don't have to be honest in business dealings".


Conversely, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that money is part of morality. Legal matters involving material and wealth, have historically been apart from morality, which can be traced back to the Code of Hammurabi. "In its descriptive sense, "morality" refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores. It does not connote objective claims of right or wrong, but only refers to that which is considered right or wrong." (source) Corporations and business, in the holistic sense, are inherently amoral and can only be bounded by law, not moral codes. Failure to pay a loan is an illegal act and is punishable by laws. No morality there. The consequences of violating a law are mundane and have nothing to do with an abstraction called a "conscience."
 
Re: Are you morally obligated to repay a loan that you take?

Banks are evil. :roll:, ok. Yet we ALL run to them when we want to finance something beyond our ability (or desire) to pay for outright. Whether noble intent on their part or not, they do us the favor of allowing us to upgrade our lifestyle, yet some of us think it's just fine to not return the favor and pay them back.

Rationalizations. Always the rationalizations with the libs. Just Demonize the party you want to lie cheat or steal from and you've justified acting as immorally toward them as you wish. It's all about character, or in this dishonest behavior, lack thereof
 
Re: Are you morally obligated to repay a loan that you take?

Conversely, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that money is part of morality. Legal matters involving material and wealth, have historically been apart from morality, which can be traced back to the Code of Hammurabi. "In its descriptive sense, "morality" refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores. It does not connote objective claims of right or wrong, but only refers to that which is considered right or wrong." (source) Corporations and business, in the holistic sense, are inherently amoral and can only be bounded by law, not moral codes. Failure to pay a loan is an illegal act and is punishable by laws. No morality there. The consequences of violating a law are mundane and have nothing to do with an abstraction called a "conscience."

That is complete crap and you know it. You just argued that since there are laws to punish you if you get caught mugging little old ladies, it isn't immoral to do it.
 
Yes. In addition to the legal one. Even if it takes a lifetime to do so, it must be paid back. One's character is the cornerstone of their being.

Seems lots of liberals disagree with that. It is very telling.
 
Seems lots of liberals disagree with that. It is very telling.

Hard to argue otherwise. All the qualifiers and deflections show it's a concept they need to avoid. It's like student loans. Give me money to better myself, but if I don't like the better me, I don't want to pay it back. With such a mindset, failure will always be an option.
 
Hard to argue otherwise. All the qualifiers and deflections show it's a concept they need to avoid. It's like student loans. Give me money to better myself, but if I don't like the better me, I don't want to pay it back. With such a mindset, failure will always be an option.

And, as usual, there seems to be no dissent from liberals who disagree with the utter contempt for morality, decency and honesty that we're seeing from other liberals, so it seems safe to conclude that there isn't any meaningful disagreement in their ranks on this. And we wonder why this country is so screwed up.
 
And, as usual, there seems to be no dissent from liberals who disagree with the utter contempt for morality, decency and honesty that we're seeing from other liberals, so it seems safe to conclude that there isn't any meaningful disagreement in their ranks on this. And we wonder why this country is so screwed up.
If I landed here from another planet, and this thread was the my first and only interaction with humans, that would be my conclusion.
 
If I landed here from another planet, and this thread was the my first and only interaction with humans, that would be my conclusion.

The fact that I'm from this planet and know a whole bunch of liberals personally doesn't contradict that conclusion, either.
 
Option 3: Depends on who you borrowed the money from.

If you borrowed it from an individual, then yes, you are morally obligated to repay on their terms, or as soon as possible afterwards if you can't make the payment(s).

If it's a bank, there is no "moral" issue about a strategic default. The reason is simple: the government bails out the banks. They don't bail out individuals.
 
Re: Are you morally obligated to repay a loan that you take?

That is complete crap and you know it. You just argued that since there are laws to punish you if you get caught mugging little old ladies, it isn't immoral to do it.
`
I'm sorry you disagree with me but calling my synopsis "crap" because of it, is rather disingenuous. Furthermore, the laws governing wealth and material transactions are "commercial law" as opposed to your mugging example which is "civil law". I'm not sure you understand the difference and how morality is NOT a part of commerce.
 
The fact that I'm from this planet and know a whole bunch of liberals personally doesn't contradict that conclusion, either.
`
You seem to be stuck on this liberal/conservative dichotomy...why?
 
`
You seem to be stuck on this liberal/conservative dichotomy...why?

For the same reason I'm stuck on a night and day dichotomy. Liberals are the philosophical opposites of conservatives and this issue of character and morals is just as evident as night and day. I'm stuck on the liberal/conservative dichotomy because it's staring us all in the face to the point where denying is lying.
 
Re: Are you morally obligated to repay a loan that you take?

Banks aren't an evil institution any more than liberal are an evil group of people. Loaning money isn't evil. It is an agreement that profits both the bank and the individual borrowing. Otherwise, neither need enter a loan agreement.

Loaning money is fine; loaning money you don't have isn't.

People have starved not from a lack of resources, but from paralysis of our monetary and economic systems, with banks at the root of it.

That's what's evil about the institution, not necessarily the banks themselves.
 
Option 3: Depends on who you borrowed the money from.

If you borrowed it from an individual, then yes, you are morally obligated to repay on their terms, or as soon as possible afterwards if you can't make the payment(s).

If it's a bank, there is no "moral" issue about a strategic default. The reason is simple: the government bails out the banks. They don't bail out individuals.
If I understand correctly, essentially, you have no morals of your own. Your morals are solely determined by others.
 
which is why he - and you - are found guilty of conflating a business decision with a moral one

....you appear to be not getting the cognitive leap: He is asking "what is the right thing to do from a moral perspective", not a business or legal one. If the answer is "morals play no role in whether or not I borrow money and then don't pay it back", then your answer is "no".


But all you are doing right now is validating Papa Bull.
 
If I understand correctly, essentially, you have no morals of your own. Your morals are solely determined by others.

Given that businesses are fundamentally amoral, the only logical thing to do when dealing with them is to take an amoral position yourself.
 
Re: Are you morally obligated to repay a loan that you take?

Loaning money is fine; loaning money you don't have isn't.

You obviously don't understand how banks work. Leverage makes this economy work. When a bank loans you money, it doesn't loan you cash, per se. It writes a number on a piece of paper called a "check". It is a piece of paper that represents a cash value. And your mortgage is a piece of paper that represents a cash value. Both the check and the mortgage have a face value. The bank can sell your mortgage just like you can sell the endorsed check.

People have starved not from a lack of resources, but from paralysis of our monetary and economic systems, with banks at the root of it.

That is an unsupportable statement.

That's what's evil about the institution, not necessarily the banks themselves.

and the unsupportable statement is the basis for your assertion that banks are evil. Banks aren't here for the purpose of starving people. They are here to facilitate cash flow and provide financial services. Don't like the services? Don't use them. Problem solved.
 
For the same reason I'm stuck on a night and day dichotomy. Liberals are the philosophical opposites of conservatives and this issue of character and morals is just as evident as night and day. I'm stuck on the liberal/conservative dichotomy because it's staring us all in the face to the point where denying is lying.

That's not true. Unless you've ever been faced with a situation where your house was extremely underwater answering one way or another on a website doesn't answer any questions on character. Maybe Liberals are just more introspective and truthful with what they would do? It seems as if every conservative on here has a knee jerk reaction "I'd be paying back all 300k on a 2 dollar house!" when in reality they would literally run from that house.
 
....you appear to be not getting the cognitive leap: He is asking "what is the right thing to do from a moral perspective", not a business or legal one. If the answer is "morals play no role in whether or not I borrow money and then don't pay it back", then your answer is "no".


But all you are doing right now is validating Papa Bull.

no
what i am showing is that there is a business issue versus a moral issue
and regarding the underwater mortgage, there is no moral issue
only a business decision
 
Given that businesses are fundamentally amoral, the only logical thing to do when dealing with them is to take an amoral position yourself.

Business is amoral. BEHAVIOR, however, is not. Do you really want to argue that if your boss refuses to pay you what you are due that it is NOT immoral? Or that if a business dumps poison in your well knowingly that they did nothing immoral? Rationalizing that you can lie, cheat or steal without being immoral if you just say that whoever you screwed is amoral - so it's OK....

Seriously, that's the disconnect with the human "conscience" that is the defining characteristic of sociopathy. Are we becoming a nation of sociopaths?
 
That's not true. Unless you've ever been faced with a situation where your house was extremely underwater answering one way or another on a website doesn't answer any questions on character. Maybe Liberals are just more introspective and truthful with what they would do? It seems as if every conservative on here has a knee jerk reaction "I'd be paying back all 300k on a 2 dollar house!" when in reality they would literally run from that house.

I lost every penny of 8 years of on-time mortgage payments, my deposit AND Another 10,000.00 when I sold my home because it was so badly underwater. I could have skipped out on it but I didn't. I didn't need to worry about the hit to my credit because I had enough to buy my current home with cash. I would have been 10k richer just to walk away and let the bank foreclose.

But I agreed to repay x-amount of money and it wasn't conditional based on my happiness with the value my house. What my house was worth in the changing market was irrelevant. I borrowed x-amount with the condition that I repay x-amount and a fixed interest rate. So I did what I agreed to do. My behavior didn't contribute to the financial crisis we all paid for but the behavior of people who walked on their loans did.
 
I lost every penny of 8 years of on-time mortgage payments, my deposit AND Another 10,000.00 when I sold my home because it was so badly underwater. I could have skipped out on it but I didn't. I didn't need to worry about the hit to my credit because I had enough to buy my current home with cash. I would have been 10k richer just to walk away and let the bank foreclose.

I wouldn't walk away from 10,000 underwater either. There are places that saw a 60-70% drop in home prices. That's a little different than owing say 300,000 on a 120,000 dollar house.

But I agreed to repay x-amount of money and it wasn't conditional based on my happiness with the value my house. What my house was worth in the changing market was irrelevant. I borrowed x-amount with the condition that I repay x-amount and a fixed interest rate. So I did what I agreed to do. My behavior didn't contribute to the financial crisis we all paid for but the behavior of people who walked on their loans did.
The vast majority of foreclosures are a result of lost jobs, family illness, or too much accumulated debt. Strategic foreclosures were typically much more rare and only done in higher income neighborhoods where the values dropped the most.

Not to mention...a large portion of those strategic defaults were speculators.
 
Back
Top Bottom