[mattw]

Ethically. I'm ok. This is because a mortgage has pre-arranged clauses in the contract that outline what the exit criteria are for the bank and the borrower. It's a contract with a pre-negotiated process around a divorce. A prenuptual if you will. In this case, we are just choosing to execute one of the clauses in the contract, as any business has the right to do. So, there is nothing unethical about adhering to the contract.

This is one of the arguments I've seen that doesn't sit well with me. How is this different from saying that it's ethical to steal money from a convenience store, because I'm willing to go to prison for it? After all, jail time is the pre-negotiated outcome for thieves, and I might decide I'd rather have the money and do the jail time rather than refraining from stealing in the first place.

Apart from one being in the criminal realm and the other in the civil, what's the difference? Or is that the difference that justifies the one and not the other? (Why?)

[TylerJewell]

There are social and religious experts much more qualified than me to address your question.

However, I've heard stories from social experts that indicate it is ethical to conduct crime, organized or otherwise, because the consequences are defined. In your scenario, though, stealing's punishment is jail and repayment of the amount stolen. So, the trade off is a bit different.

That's not my position on the matter, but it's thought provoking.

Morality on the other hand...

[mattw]

It seems if one were to listen to those social experts, all of society would become a game of incentives and disincentives where the goal is finding the mismatched pairs (i.e. action where incentive outweighs disincentive, regardless of what the action is - whether it be walking away from a mortgage or robbing a store). In that scheme ethics (and morality - I don't think there's a difference) become purely relative, because value is an inherently relative concept.

Not being a moral relativist, I naturally disagree with the idea that such a society is desirable or that ethics in that case are even meaningful at all. :) Which is one of the things that disturbs me about the idea of an action being ethical just because it's defined in a contract.

[moonpolysoft]

The store owner did not consent to the robbery, by definition. The bank consented to the contract and agreed that the home would be sufficient collateral for the loan.

[mattw]

I thought of this. However, I think in the abstract that's not a material difference, because (at least in theory), the "punishment should fit the crime"...society agrees that X punishment is sufficient tradeoff for Y crime. Granted, the store owner doesn't individually make an agreement with the thief, but over time that societal agreement was made nevertheless.

[moonpolysoft]

Except for the fact that exercising a clause in a contract isn't a crime.

[mattw]

True, which I originally pointed out. Although I don't have my mortgage contract in front of me (and am open to correction here), my recollection is that a foreclosure is the defined consequence of me breaking the contract I agreed to - that is, to repay my debt at a rate of $X per month. "Exercising a clause" is a euphemism for "breach of contract" in that case, isn't it? If so, I think the analogy to crime is applicable. If not, then admittedly the analogy is indeed broken.

[Tamerlin]

"Exercising a clause" is by definition NOT breaching the contract -- it IS part of the contract.

Home loans are based on collateral. You borrow money to take ownership of the collateral, and if you pay back the loan, you get to keep it. If you do NOT pay back the loan, the lending institution reclaims ownership of that collateral according to the contract.

This is mutual protection because things can change for the worse as well as for the better in the future.

[moonpolysoft]

Crime isn't breach of contract. It's breaking the law. The law isn't a contract, it's a codified set of rules put forth by a legislative body. Contracts are subordinate to the law in America.