• 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?

  • If you borrow money, you are morally obligated to repay it.

    Votes: 91 92.9%

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

    Votes: 7 7.1%
  • Total voters
    98
Papa bull said:
There's no deflection. Banks are on the hook for any loan they give you. If you don't repay the money, it comes out of their ass, so idiotic arguments that "it's not the bank's money" are the real pathetic diversions. It's simply not true and you sound like you're smart enough to know that, which makes it more likely an issue of honesty than ignorance.
Click to expand...

Which wasn't my argument in the first place. (Reading is Fundamental, remember?) I just have a problem with banks' lending money they don't already have.
 
whysoserious said:
It's no different than the idiotic health care system we have. There is little more irresponsible, dangerous, and bad for the economy than not carrying health insurance, yet the most conservative state in the country - Texas (I don't know if it's actually the most conservative state) - has the highest rate uninsured.
Click to expand...

Utterly unrelated issues. Forcing banks to make bad loans is one issue. People who don't have healthcare insurance is a completely different issue. You can bring that up on a new topic, if you think there's something meaningful behind the fact that Texas has the highest uninsured rate in the country. (Unless you can prove that it's the conservatives that are the ones that have such a high uninsured rate, you wouldn't have as good a point as you might think you do, though).
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Which wasn't my argument in the first place. (Reading is Fundamental, remember?) I just have a problem with banks' lending money they don't already have.
Click to expand...

You aren't paying attention. They are loaning based on ASSETS they already have. Money isn't the only asset of value. Mortgages are also assets of value. How much currency a bank has on hand doesn't in any way tell you what their assets are or how much debt they can cover. When they write you a mortgage check, you are cashing a check that is valid and good and has money to back it. They loaned you money they DO have. The fact that you don't understand how the banking system works doesn't change that fact. So your reasoning for feeling it's OK to stick the bank with YOUR bad purchasing decision because "they loaned you money they didn't have" is nonsense.
 
Papa bull said:
There's no deflection. Banks are on the hook for any loan they give you. If you don't repay the money, it comes out of their ass, so idiotic arguments that "it's not the bank's money" are the real pathetic diversions. It's simply not true and you sound like you're smart enough to know that, which makes it more likely an issue of honesty than ignorance.
Click to expand...

reading from the sidelines, i believe you missed his point
if you go to your local hardware store to pick up the order you prepaid to have available, and the store went out of business, you lose your money
however, if your bank goes under, the government has insured your deposits up to $250,000
the hardware store has no such backstop
which i understood to be the basis for his suggesting we treat all businesses the same
 
justabubba said:
reading from the sidelines, i believe you missed his point
if you go to your local hardware store to pick up the order you prepaid to have available, and the store went out of business, you lose your money
however, if your bank goes under, the government has insured your deposits up to $250,000
the hardware store has no such backstop
which i understood to be the basis for his suggesting we treat all businesses the same
Click to expand...

I see. Are you thinking he feels that FDIC depositor insurance is a bad thing because hardware stores don't have (or need) the same consumer protection? FDIC deposit insurance doesn't do anything to stop. Bank from going out of business if it fails. It just keeps you from losing all the savings you entrusted to the bank when they failed.

How do you think that figures into whether or not it is immoral to make the bank foreclose on your bad investment because you make out better sticking THEM with The loss from YOUR bad purchasing decision?
 
Declan said:
Interesting exchange. A teachable moment if you will. In an interview last week, the dean of the Harvard Business School made reference for Charlie Rose the three lenses they teach people to use: Economics, Legality, and Ethics. The apparently now have an oath they want graduates to take, but some people refuse to sign the oath.
Click to expand...

I've heard about the increased focus on business ethics at Harvard Business. I don't think it makes a difference though. I don't think people in charge of corporations act badly because they don't know any better. The idea of customers and workers being equal stakeholders for a corporation isn't a new one.
 
tres borrachos said:
One only has to use thinking skills to understand.

It's like saying cancer is no different than a pimple because they are both treated with medicine.

He has minimized the seriousness of defaulting on mortgages, and some idiots will read it and say "Eh, no big deal....it's just like me not picking up Sally at preschool at 3:00 instead of 4:30". Unreal.
Click to expand...

It's actually nothing like that.
The argument is that contracts include both and outline and a penalty for a breach of contract. In either case, both parties will act in their best interest.
 
iliveonramen said:
I've heard about the increased focus on business ethics at Harvard Business. I don't think it makes a difference though. I don't think people in charge of corporations act badly because they don't know any better. The idea of customers and workers being equal stakeholders for a corporation isn't a new one.
Click to expand...

It isn't just that. I think the idea is to get people to consider things as they go forward that they normally would not consider based on a spreadsheet. It could be human resources matters, but it could also be environmental matters, or community relations matters, etc.
 
iliveonramen said:
It's actually nothing like that.
The argument is that contracts include both and outline and a penalty for a breach of contract. In either case, both parties will act in their best interest.
Click to expand...

And we have "contracts" known as "laws" that outline what penalty there will be for a breach of that contract, too. The existence of a penalty for those that break our agreements isn't to be assumed to mean that breaking those agreements cannot be immoral by virtue of choosing the penalty rather than doing what's right.
 
Declan said:
It isn't just that. I think the idea is to get people to consider things as they go forward that they normally would not consider based on a spreadsheet. It could be human resources matters, but it could also be environmental matters, or community relations matters, etc.
Click to expand...

Business is more than spreadsheets. A good business is an honest business and there are a lot of honest businesses out there. I have to say that the corporation I worked for, which was in the top 100 globally for annual profits, was one of the most ethical organizations I've ever had the privilege to work for. Ethics, community involvement, ecology, respect and doing the right thing BECAUSE it's the right thing were highly stressed as corporate values and were a very serious part of all reviews annually. Bad actors didn't stay around. And the CEO, was firmly convinced that without the values, a business is just a business and that isn't something for anyone to get excited about. But by working to do GOOD things, the profits take care of themselves. He always argued that doing the right thing is NEVER a problem for the bottom line and I've seen him live by that philosophy more than once, sacrificing profits because doing the right thing was more important than taking a cheap profit.
 
Papa bull said:
And we have "contracts" known as "laws" that outline what penalty there will be for a breach of that contract, too. The existence of a penalty for those that break our agreements isn't to be assumed to mean that breaking those agreements cannot be immoral by virtue of choosing the penalty rather than doing what's right.
Click to expand...

If you walk away for a contract...two things will typically happen. They will take the house and sell it and come after the difference if it's in their best interest. In your case (10,000 under) they probably wouldn't. If it's a sizable amount they would.

Walking away from the contract is a big deal, and it's only done under extreme circumstances, but the idea that you should stick it out and pay interest for say 200k or so over the value of the property is just insane. You're better off cutting your losses and just working out a way to pay back the difference.
 
iliveonramen said:
If you walk away for a contract...two things will typically happen. They will take the house and sell it and come after the difference if it's in their best interest. In your case (10,000 under) they probably wouldn't. If it's a sizable amount they would.

Walking away from the contract is a big deal, and it's only done under extreme circumstances, but the idea that you should stick it out and pay interest for say 200k or so over the value of the property is just insane. You're better off cutting your losses and just working out a way to pay back the difference.
Click to expand...

If you rape your neighbor's wife, they come after you, too. The fact that you pay the penalty for breaking our legal contract (thou shalt not rape) doesn't make it an acceptable choice for you to make. The fact that the bank can recover some of it's losses doesn't make it right for you to stick them with your losses. When you buy a house, the house is YOURS. It's your purchase, not the bank's purchase. If your purchase doesn't work out to be as profitable as you thought it would be, walking away and sticking the bank with that loss is just unscrupulous. Sure, it's good for you and bad for the bank, but it demonstrates that given the choice, you will do what's good for you instead of what is RIGHT. That's the morality of it. Granted, you can decide not to give a damn about doing the right thing and not care who thinks you're moral or not.... hey, after all, it's good for you and what's good for you is all that really counts, right?

I expect better from my friends, associates and business partners. Anyone that will screw someone else if it profits them is someone I don't want to have anything to do with. I have friends who filed bankruptcy. I don't hold it against them. They tried their best and the debt became so great there was no way they could pay it. The reason I still consider them friends is because they didn't blame the banks or credit card companies or car dealership and never tried so shrug their shoulders and figure it's no sweat. They knew they made mistakes and they knew that now others were going to have to pay for them and there was a sense of remorse. At least they KNEW that it was a failure on their part. At least they know and can acknowledge the difference between right and wrong.
 
Papa bull said:
If you rape your neighbor's wife, they come after you, too. The fact that you pay the penalty for breaking our legal contract (thou shalt not rape) doesn't make it an acceptable choice for you to make. The fact that the bank can recover some of it's losses doesn't make it right for you to stick them with your losses. When you buy a house, the house is YOURS. It's your purchase, not the bank's purchase. If your purchase doesn't work out to be as profitable as you thought it would be, walking away and sticking the bank with that loss is just unscrupulous. Sure, it's good for you and bad for the bank, but it demonstrates that given the choice, you will do what's good for you instead of what is RIGHT. That's the morality of it. Granted, you can decide not to give a damn about doing the right thing and not care who thinks you're moral or not.... hey, after all, it's good for you and what's good for you is all that really counts, right?

I expect better from my friends, associates and business partners. Anyone that will screw someone else if it profits them is someone I don't want to have anything to do with. I have friends who filed bankruptcy. I don't hold it against them. They tried their best and the debt became so great there was no way they could pay it. The reason I still consider them friends is because they didn't blame the banks or credit card companies or car dealership and never tried so shrug their shoulders and figure it's no sweat. They knew they made mistakes and they knew that now others were going to have to pay for them and there was a sense of remorse. At least they KNEW that it was a failure on their part. At least they know and can acknowledge the difference between right and wrong.
Click to expand...

I think you and I have beat this horse....I don't think we see or will ever see eye to eye.
 
iliveonramen said:
I think you and I have beat this horse....I don't think we see or will ever see eye to eye.
Click to expand...

Apparently not. We were just raised differently and I don't think there's any way we're going to agree because of that.
 
Re: Are you morally obligated to repay a loan that you take?

People who don't pay their debts and don't have a very good reason should never be allowed to borrow again.....
 
Re: Are you morally obligated to repay a loan that you take?

UtahBill said:
People who don't pay their debts and don't have a very good reason should never be allowed to borrow again.....
Click to expand...

Agreed. Or they can borrow from payday loan organizations and pay the sort of interest rates appropriate for those that don't feel compelled to pay their debts.
 
Papa bull said:
You aren't paying attention. They are loaning based on ASSETS they already have. Money isn't the only asset of value. Mortgages are also assets of value. How much currency a bank has on hand doesn't in any way tell you what their assets are or how much debt they can cover. When they write you a mortgage check, you are cashing a check that is valid and good and has money to back it. They loaned you money they DO have. The fact that you don't understand how the banking system works doesn't change that fact. So your reasoning for feeling it's OK to stick the bank with YOUR bad purchasing decision because "they loaned you money they didn't have" is nonsense.
Click to expand...

Of course I'm paying attention. I just disagree with that practice when it comes to lending. It has the potential to become a major slippery slope in which a run on the banks could create a bigger hole than the money supply itself. Clearly you don't understand that.

And if I, as a business entity, can legally stick someone else with the consequences of my bad decision, I will. It happens all the time, even in the most "ethical" companies. Yet another thing you don't pay attention to.
 
Papa bull said:
Utterly unrelated issues. Forcing banks to make bad loans is one issue. People who don't have healthcare insurance is a completely different issue. You can bring that up on a new topic, if you think there's something meaningful behind the fact that Texas has the highest uninsured rate in the country. (Unless you can prove that it's the conservatives that are the ones that have such a high uninsured rate, you wouldn't have as good a point as you might think you do, though).
Click to expand...

In a discussion about personal responsibility with finances, I can't bring up being uninsured? Ok, moderator. Whatever you say.

I'm also enjoying your implication that it must be the liberals in the state, because we all know how fiscally responsible conservatives are. Anyway, let's examine this map:

Map of the Uninsured
Compare the above map to red/blue states. Correlation does not equal causation, but I think we agree there is a pattern here.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Of course I'm paying attention. I just disagree with that practice when it comes to lending. It has the potential to become a major slippery slope in which a run on the banks could create a bigger hole than the money supply itself. Clearly you don't understand that.

And if I, as a business entity, can legally stick someone else with the consequences of my bad decision, I will. It happens all the time, even in the most "ethical" companies. Yet another thing you don't pay attention to.
Click to expand...

I know you would stick someone else with the consequences of your bad decisions. You've said that all along. That was never in dispute.

You are one of the people that will do what is profitable for you instead of what is right. That is unethical and I wouldn't knowingly associate or do business with people who would do that. I will only willingly associate with people who do ethical business.
 
whysoserious said:
In a discussion about personal responsibility with finances, I can't bring up being uninsured? Ok, moderator. Whatever you say.

I'm also enjoying your implication that it must be the liberals in the state, because we all know how fiscally responsible conservatives are. Anyway, let's examine this map:

Map of the Uninsured
Compare the above map to red/blue states. Correlation does not equal causation, but I think we agree there is a pattern here.
Click to expand...

You can bring up Snow White and the seven dwarves if you want but it wouldn't be on topic, either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom