Comments Posted By widespreadpanic
Displaying 1 To 3 Of 3 Comments

THE ETHICS OF 'WALKING AWAY' FROM YOUR MORTGAGE

Robert: I'm sure the fact you live in a recourse state has nothing to do with your decision right?

Comment Posted By widespreadpanic On 4.02.2010 @ 13:10

The difference between right and wrong is not a contract we make with society. These beliefs are subjective and arbitrary. I never signed a social contract when I reached a rational decision making age, did YOU?

Their is no consensus or unified theory of ethics and this is exactly why I won't change your mind and you won't change mine.

This is the classic disagreement of Consequentialism versus Deontological ethics.
Wiki: Ethics, OR summarized "The ends justify the means," versus, "duty to act regardless of outcome."

a)(Deontological case) Continue to throw good money at bad down the rabbit hole of underwater mortgage to "honor your promise to pay" to banks that **poofed** 90% of the loan money into existence via fractional reserve banking. Your "honor" gives you value and good "morals."
OR
b)(Consequentialist case) Break your promise to the bank and vanish X amount of debt from your families finances, enabling a higher quality of life for your loved ones, to whom you hold a moral duty to care for. You will carry the stigma as a contract breaker or one that goes back on your word given certain circumstances.

Which is more right or more wrong? Your belief is as subjective as mine. Except I would say, placed in another man's shoes, most loving, rational, "moral" men would choose option B.

Fascinating. Rarely have I seen such beautifully constructed sophistry, such complex self justification for what really is a simple question of basic ethics.

There are so many holes in your thesis I was wanting to put it on my bologna sandwich Your loved ones for whom you have a "moral duty" to care for do not need a "higher quality of life" to survive. That's irrational. It is a choice you make at the expense of the rest of us - again, inherently selfish.

But never mind. If you are trapped in your burning house I am sure you won't expect anyone to come to your assistance. Why should firefighters risk their lives? After all, they have a moral duty to their families to survive. And if you're worried about the fact that you pay them to rescue you, don't worry. I'll take up a collection after you've burned to death and rebate that portion of your taxes. It will be no skin off the noses of the firefighters and besides, it would be what any " loving, rational, moral" man would do, right?

ed.

Comment Posted By widespreadpanic On 4.02.2010 @ 12:17

I live in a non-recourse state. My contract states my ability to walk away. I will be doing just that. It may be a slap in the face for you suckers, but you'll get over it.

Comment Posted By widespreadpanic On 4.02.2010 @ 12:10


 


 


Pages (1) : [1]


«« Back To Stats Page