Just to clarify, the $100,000-$500,000 is collective debt from many different debtors ranging from a few hundred to a few thousand dollars each. This isn't forgiving one single person's giant debt.
Thanks for the clarification, it was not clear in the original message but makes more sense after the clarification. However, only a little more - among all charity I could do with my money, why should I select this particular one? I still see this would be incentivizing both irresponsible borrowing and irresponsible lending. I'd rather have the same funds go to either helping people in need directly or educating them about their rights and proper bankruptcy debt discharge procedures.
Maybe I'm missing some important points there but it looks like this project is basically giving out money to people after selecting them by the property of being bad debtor (and without any filtering distinguishing unfortunate accidents from sheer irresponsibility). Of course, each person is free to choose his own charitable giving, but so far the case for it does not sound convincing.
I don't think refusing to pay the debt you took voluntarily and spent is ethical or moral. Charity is laudable, even one that I think is misguided, but I don't really think suggesting people defraud their lenders an masse is a good idea. OTOH, I think chances of such campaign to succeed is extremely low, so it becomes just pure charity.
Maybe I'm missing some important points there but it looks like this project is basically giving out money to people after selecting them by the property of being bad debtor (and without any filtering distinguishing unfortunate accidents from sheer irresponsibility). Of course, each person is free to choose his own charitable giving, but so far the case for it does not sound convincing.