Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Is it immoral to take out a student loan if you might die?

Rate this topic


BRG253

Recommended Posts

This is totally hypothetical. Suppose you are sick and there is a chance that you might die, but also a chance that you will survive. You know that you might not live to pay back the money, but the credit union does not use health as a criterion for determining eligibility. Do you take the loan and consider it the bank's fault for not screening applicants more carefully? Or is this immoral?

Edited by BRG253
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is totally hypothetical. Suppose you are sick and there is a chance that you might die, but also a chance that you will survive. You know that you might not live to pay back the money, but the credit union does not use health as a criterion for determining eligibility. Do you take the loan and consider it the bank's fault for not screening applicants more carefully? Or is this immoral?

I'm not sure how far along in the process but as you go along you will see that most of the loans address (in small, small print) what happens in case of death.

If you have a co-signer they will almost always inherit the obligation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question should be framed in terms of general principles, not a highly specific application like student loans. So it seems to me that the root question is, whether you should promise to do something which you do not honestly believe you can do. The answer to that is a straightforward "No". Shifting the responsibility onto the bank because of supposedly inadequate screening is just evasion. The question that is not so easy to answer is how to deal with uncertainty as to your outcome. If you know that you probably won't be able to make good on your promise, then it would be dishonest of you to make the promise, whereas if it one think that there's a non-negligible chance that you can't make good on your promise, they I don't think it is immoral to make a promise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question should be framed in terms of general principles, not a highly specific application like student loans. So it seems to me that the root question is, whether you should promise to do something which you do not honestly believe you can do. The answer to that is a straightforward "No". Shifting the responsibility onto the bank because of supposedly inadequate screening is just evasion. The question that is not so easy to answer is how to deal with uncertainty as to your outcome. If you know that you probably won't be able to make good on your promise, then it would be dishonest of you to make the promise, whereas if it one think that there's a non-negligible chance that you can't make good on your promise, they I don't think it is immoral to make a promise.

If you are going to die, why does it matter? Life is fundamental here, and seeing your life coming to an end as a certainty make short term thinking more and more valid. So these principles seem to apply less and less as one approaches death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are going to die, why does it matter? Life is fundamental here, and seeing your life coming to an end as a certainty make short term thinking more and more valid. So these principles seem to apply less and less as one approaches death.

I don't want to get too off topic, but what exactly makes you think that principles don't apply when you are close to dying? Whether or not you are close to dying is irrelevant to the source of morality. Morality derives from your nature as a human being, and then from your choice to live, and how to be consistent with that choice. It seems to me that even when you might die soon you have still chosen to live (made only more explicit in this particular case by the fact that you are taking out a loan) and you are still a rational being.

In any case, I totally agree with David here...it is quite simply dishonest. I am not sure why, but it seems like a few of the recent threads here have been tinged with questions from a libertarian ethical perspective...remember that just because something is legal, does not mean it is moral. The scope of moral actions is not as wide as the scope of legal actions, despite the fact that Politics is based ultimately in Ethics.

Tristan

Edited by ttime
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So these principles seem to apply less and less as one approaches death.

If one is a libertarian or hedonist you would be correct.

But to the Objectivist to be morally consistent and correct is its own reward.

For myself, as I approached death I would prefer greater circumspection and greater ability to act on principle if I knew the time of my passing. So that I may pass without feelings of regret or wrongs or loose ends.

The notion that being close to death might make one more morally permissive of their own flaws is to take a stance that to stand on principle is to sacrifice something.

Objectivists should be able to see the flaw in that reasoning....?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question should be framed in terms of general principles, not a highly specific application like student loans. So it seems to me that the root question is, whether you should promise to do something which you do not honestly believe you can do. The answer to that is a straightforward "No". Shifting the responsibility onto the bank because of supposedly inadequate screening is just evasion. The question that is not so easy to answer is how to deal with uncertainty as to your outcome. If you know that you probably won't be able to make good on your promise, then it would be dishonest of you to make the promise, whereas if it one think that there's a non-negligible chance that you can't make good on your promise, they I don't think it is immoral to make a promise.

I agree, but it can be difficult to predict longevity - the Scottish government released al-Megrahi on the basis that he had three months to live (don't get me started) that was a year ago and he is still alive and kicking. My grandad died a year after he was told "upto a month" by the doctors. In cases where there is doubt, you have to be upfront with the loan company - here is the situation, I have X condition, my prognosis is Y... I want to pay you back, but I may die, do you still want to issue the loan? (perhaps at a higher rate of interest to reflect the risk)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are going to die, why does it matter?
BTW I have personal information that indicates that you are going to die (I learned it in week 1 of my logical class, on analogy to Socrates). So this is a general question and deserves a general answer. All living beings are faced with the ultimate alternative of existing or not existing, and as a volitional being, you must choose to live or die. As long as you've chosen to live, that implies a certain course of conduct that supports your ultimate end. If, contrarily, you have chosen to die, then that implies a different course of conduct that supports a different ultimate end, and I do mean your ultimate end.

If you have chosen to die, then you should just get it over with. So obviously you have chosen to live, therefore as a rational being you accept what that logically entails. The virtue of integrity is part of what that entails.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In cases where there is doubt, you have to be upfront with the loan company - here is the situation, I have X condition, my prognosis is Y... I want to pay you back, but I may die, do you still want to issue the loan? (perhaps at a higher rate of interest to reflect the risk)
I did want to avoid the complications of student loans in particular, but now that the basic principle is identified, we can talk about this specific quirk. The deal over here is that the federal government provides loan guarantees for certain students (based on their wealth). This is a means of short-circuiting the ordinary free market process of lending money, which requires collateral.

But since we live under the increasingly oppressive jackboot of socialism, we should contemplate what it would mean to take out a private student loan and then die. The parents generously put their house up as collateral so that Johnny can go to college and realize his life-long dream of majoring in Womyn's Studies, graduating 3 months before dying of terminal ennui. Johnny's loan is in default and the bank looks to collect, so they do the legal paperwork necessary to take the parents' house which was put up as collateral, to guarantee repayment of the loan. Fortunately for them, Action Reporter Ted Blatinski of 6 On Your Side gets wind of this and starts a media campaign against the bank and their heartlessness in wanting their money back. There are Senate hearings into the matter and a law is passed which prohibits a bank from attempting to seize homes put up for collateral for any loan. In other words, even if the loan is guaranteed with some tangible asset, because contracts don't actually mean anything when there is a Human Tragedy involved (adding the secret obligatory ingredient of government intervention), then there is nothing that the bank can do to look out for its own interests.

In the case that a person is qualified for a federally underwritten student loan, the question is whether a person should knowingly saddle taxpayers with an increased future tax burden in this circumstance. The answer, again, is "No", though I would not be surprised if someone (mistakenly) points to Rand's essay on scholarships as evidence that as long as the government is involved in doling out the money, that questions of integrity go away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But since we live under the increasingly oppressive jackboot of socialism, we should contemplate what it would mean to take out a private student loan and then die. The parents generously put their house up as collateral so that Johnny can go to college and realize his life-long dream of majoring in Womyn's Studies, graduating 3 months before dying of terminal ennui. Johnny's loan is in default and the bank looks to collect, so they do the legal paperwork necessary to take the parents' house which was put up as collateral, to guarantee repayment of the loan. Fortunately for them, Action Reporter Ted Blatinski of 6 On Your Side gets wind of this and starts a media campaign against the bank and their heartlessness in wanting their money back. There are Senate hearings into the matter and a law is passed which prohibits a bank from attempting to seize homes put up for collateral for any loan. In other words, even if the loan is guaranteed with some tangible asset, because contracts don't actually mean anything when there is a Human Tragedy involved (adding the secret obligatory ingredient of government intervention), then there is nothing that the bank can do to look out for its own interests.

Having had my morning laugh I can now go about my morning cackling to myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not an argument, and has no probative value. It is question-begging, and an attempt to intimidate.

Morality is not its own reward, it is a matter of practical success in life on the whole.

This is a confession, not an argument. I would argue that as one sees the end of his life coming, the whole of his being becomes more defined. To resort to scurrilous tactics would be a betrayal of his life, and disgusting to him. On the other hand, a person who can not factually look on their life as on the whole good, and who looks on death as unfair, might resort to such actions as acting out and self-pity.

The interesting question here is whether, nearing death, the long-range view that underlies morality doesn't become irrelevant. To "stand on principles" that consider long-range effects seems, on the face of it, (though it isn't, in fact) to become pointless.

Question-begging here. You are claiming what the Objectivist position is, in this specific situation, not defending your view of what it is. Also, smacks of intimidation again. "If you want to be an Objectivist, you must see the flaw I do."

Mindy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morality is not its own reward, it is a matter of practical success in life on the whole.

It is neither.

"It is a code of values to guide man’s choices and actions—the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life. Ethics, as a science, deals with discovering and defining such a code."

What you describe is pragmatism, unless I'm very much mistaken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is neither.

"It is a code of values to guide man’s choices and actions—the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life. Ethics, as a science, deals with discovering and defining such a code."

What you describe is pragmatism, unless I'm very much mistaken.

Why do we need guidance in making "choices and actions?" Because if they are the wrong ones, we are injured or reduced. Given our goal is living and prospering, and that we have to choose how to do so, the principles that guide our choices and actions are those that maximize our living and prospering, and what could be more practical than that?

Pragmatism doesn't own the concept, "practical."

Mindy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do we need guidance in making "choices and actions?" Because if they are the wrong ones, we are injured or reduced. Given our goal is living and prospering, and that we have to choose how to do so, the principles that guide our choices and actions are those that maximize our living and prospering, and what could be more practical than that?

Pragmatism doesn't own the concept, "practical."

Mindy

Morality does not guarantee practical success - it guarantees success in living qua Man.

If one chooses one's actions based solely on what guarantees practical success, that's suggesting expediency of the moment. Tying back into the bookseller question, it's momentarily practical to buy a book, read it, and return it, despite no problem with the book, simply because the bookseller doesn't explicitly state in his book return policy that there must be a defect. It's a pragmatic action to gain the value of the book while exchanging nothing for it - but it's not a moral one.

I can make practical choices that ensure greater prosperity for my future, but if my choices compromise my integrity, even though I may prosper, my choices would not be moral choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do we need guidance in making "choices and actions?" Because if they are the wrong ones, we are injured or reduced.
No, in fact the reason we need guidance in the form of moral principle is that by man's nature, he must survive by discovering his means of survival, and because of the nature of his cognition, those means must be understood conceptually -- in terms of moral principles.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW I have personal information that indicates that you are going to die (I learned it in week 1 of my logical class, on analogy to Socrates). So this is a general question and deserves a general answer. All living beings are faced with the ultimate alternative of existing or not existing, and as a volitional being, you must choose to live or die. As long as you've chosen to live, that implies a certain course of conduct that supports your ultimate end. If, contrarily, you have chosen to die, then that implies a different course of conduct that supports a different ultimate end, and I do mean your ultimate end.

If you have chosen to die, then you should just get it over with. So obviously you have chosen to live, therefore as a rational being you accept what that logically entails. The virtue of integrity is part of what that entails.

Oh please, don't be obtuse. It was very clear that I didn't mean "going to die" in the absolute sense. Most people hope/expect to die at a point that approximates their natural life span (or further if they think its possible). I am talking about certain death in the context of knowing the general area in which you will die, as in "you have about 6 months to live".

Objectivist morality, as it has been said many times by Peikoff, is for living life in the long range. Choosing to live, in a sense, is to choose to live in the long range, as most people at a minimum choose to live a short-term concrete bound existence. What does ethics have to say about living in the short term? Nothing. It can't offer you any principles because principles aren't for the short term. People who live in the short term don't need ethics, they will get what they earn.

The point is a terminal illness (assuming that nothing can be done with it) removes the choice to live (in the long range), which is the underpinnings of ethics.

As an example, a man is dying of some sort of poison over a couple of hours. The choice to die has been made for him, we can't rationally advise him to make a shelter, to grow food, or any other long term plan. The Objectivist principles only matter to the extent that they provide the amount of happiness required for the rest of their life. So the principles only matter to the degree that most people already follow the objectivity principles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, in fact the reason we need guidance in the form of moral principle is that by man's nature, he must survive by discovering his means of survival, and because of the nature of his cognition, those means must be understood conceptually -- in terms of moral principles.

For the practical purpose of living a long term life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morality does not guarantee practical success - it guarantees success in living qua Man.

If one chooses one's actions based solely on what guarantees practical success, that's suggesting expediency of the moment. Tying back into the bookseller question, it's momentarily practical to buy a book, read it, and return it, despite no problem with the book, simply because the bookseller doesn't explicitly state in his book return policy that there must be a defect. It's a pragmatic action to gain the value of the book while exchanging nothing for it - but it's not a moral one.

I can make practical choices that ensure greater prosperity for my future, but if my choices compromise my integrity, even though I may prosper, my choices would not be moral choices.

What mindy said never suggested expediency of the moment. In fact she has suggested the opposite several times, that the purpose of morality, is for long term success in life. That is not at all the same thing as pragmatism, as pragmatism doesn't recognize a concept of long term success or any form knowledge that could help us reach it.

And if you made choices that compromise your integrity, and then you were still successfull (in the fullest widest sense of the word, happy and all of that stuff), what in the world would be the point of morality? Some arbitrary chains places upon us based on Aristotelian essentialism (intrinsicism)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objectivist morality, as it has been said many times by Peikoff, is for living life in the long range.
You seem to have gotten confused as to what that means. Morality is for living life, and one must have a purpose which encompasses all of one's life, not just the range of the moment. Nothing that Peikoff or Rand ever said can be construed as saying "If you won't live your ordinary life span, then morality doesn't matter".
What does ethics have to say about living in the short term? Nothing.
Utterly false: ethics has something to say about all terms of life.
It can't offer you any principles because principles aren't for the short term.
No, moral principles are not just, exclusively for the short term.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morality does not guarantee practical success - it guarantees success in living qua Man.

If one chooses one's actions based solely on what guarantees practical success, that's suggesting expediency of the moment. Tying back into the bookseller question, it's momentarily practical to buy a book, read it, and return it, despite no problem with the book, simply because the bookseller doesn't explicitly state in his book return policy that there must be a defect. It's a pragmatic action to gain the value of the book while exchanging nothing for it - but it's not a moral one.

I can make practical choices that ensure greater prosperity for my future, but if my choices compromise my integrity, even though I may prosper, my choices would not be moral choices.

What is moral is what is practical for the goal of living qua man. "Practicality" is not a dirty word.

Mindy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to have gotten confused as to what that means. Morality is for living life, and one must have a purpose which encompasses all of one's life, not just the range of the moment. Nothing that Peikoff or Rand ever said can be construed as saying "If you won't live your ordinary life span, then morality doesn't matter".Utterly false: ethics has something to say about all terms of life.No, moral principles are not just, exclusively for the short term.

1) Those positions are completely unrelated to reality. If what you were saying was true anyone who didn't follow the Objectivist principles fairly closely would be dead. Considering how many people manage to live quite a while believing in Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism, this can't be true. Clearly people can stay alive without being rational in such a narrow since.

2) You are straw manning me, it isn't about "not living a normal lifespan", it is about approaching the point of certain death. Ethics can offer people the ability to live happily for thirty years, but the closer you get to the point of certain death the less ethics can off you because ethics is about life.

Peikoff, OPAR, 214 "The first step here is the fact that man needs to act long range." "'Long Range' means 'allowing for or extending into the more distant future.' A man is long range to the extent that he chooses his actions with reference to such a future."

How the hell can someone be long range if that future doesn't exist? No long term thinking, no morality. Because plenty of people "get away with" not being moral in the short run (and sometimes in the long run).

It saddens me to see people treating Objectivism like it is a form of deontology.

3) Morality has something to say about all terms of life? What does it have to say about the next five minutes and only the next five minutes? Could ethics give advice on a five minute time span and only a five minute time span without being superfluous? A superfluous statement like "Be careful when walking around rocks so that you don't crack your head on them", even islamists are capable of being "rational" in that sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are straw manning me, it isn't about "not living a normal lifespan", it is about approaching the point of certain death.
Okay, I'll tell you what. Restate your claim about Objectivist ethics only being about "long life", and especially that part where you think Peikoff, or Rand, has provides some sanction for rejecting the Objectivist ethics when death is within 6 months. And be so kind as to provide actual quotes of what they said. I would like to understand at what point you believe that Objectivist ethics simply does not apply.

Your understanding of p. 214 is quite defective. Peikoff says, as I said, that man's principles must be based on the long range -- the full range of his life. At no point does he ever say "But ethics becomes irrelevant if that period is less than a year". You have twisted the expression "long range" to mean "some period that we would ordinarily understand as being 'a long time'," and that is clearly not what he means. You are the one being obtuse about the concept of "dying". Death is imminent when it approaches within some few minutes; it is not imminent when one has a disease that will kill them in a week, month or year. In that interim, you are still alive, and since you have chosen to live rather than end it immediately, ethics is relevant to what remain of your life. The same is true when you are 80 years old and have relatively few years left to live.

If you will direct your attention just a few lines further down, on p. 215, he states:

For any living organism, the course of action that survival demands is continuous, full-time, all-embracing. No action an organism takes is irrelevant to its existence. Every such action is either in accordance with what self-preservation requires or it is not; it is for the entity's life or against it.

It is clear that he is speaking of the entire range of man's life. Long-range means all of his life. Quoting Rand, he states:

"Man's life is a continuous whole: for good or evil, every day, year and decade of his life holds the sum of all the days behind him." Man can and must know not merely tomorrow's requirements or this season's, but every identifiable factor that affects his survival. He can assess not merely the proximate, but also the remote consequences of his choices.

"Long range" means, plain and simply, "the integrated whole".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...