buying or disposing of timeshare is purely financial decision and should be treated as such. There is nothing moral or immoral about this
Your posts are interesting. Peculiar logic to me but probably pretty reflective of modern socialist leanings... let the infamous "they" deal with the resulting problems whenever I bail or simply get tired of handling my situation.
Everything we decide to do or not do has a moral component. In any decision, there are choices which are more moral, as in more ethical, fair, honest, decent and considerate of the impacts on both ourselves and others, whether we personally know the "others" or not. Some decisions may seem to have such a minuscule impact that we don't give the morality a thought. But it still exists. Ask anyone who cares about child labor in poor nations where your WalMart or KMart blue jeans are made and you'll hear plenty about the morality of seemingly benign daily decisions. Whether you opt to consider the moral aspect of a choice or not, does not affect the morality that inherently exists in decision-making.
I am sorry but in my opinion there is nothing immoral to try to make the best personal financial decision as long as you don't violate laws.
This sounds like you base your idea of morality (right vs. wrong or fair vs. unfair) on whether there is a law that currently defines it. I'd challenge you to rethink this. If it's legal to permit a family's children to seek an education or to own property, regardless of their religion or gender, in one country but not legal in another, is it then moral in one place and immoral in the other??? If the law changes, does the morality change?
You have moral issue when someone lie or cheat on you, not when you deal with property/legal matter.
What if they lie about dealing with property? What about when all the owners purchased, and signed agreements accepting a 1/50th share of the expenses to maintain the property? Then some bail and the remaining people are left to each pay 1/30th of the expenses? Somehow, those who bailed have had a negative impact on the rest of the owners, whether they want to hide behind the law or not. That's where the morality of their decision appears. Just because they don't know the other folks (and can't apologize personally), it's easier to pretend that this was a purely practical decision on paper with no moral aspect to it. But a silent betrayal took place. The law doesn't address all morals.
Luckily society recognizes the difference (significant) and that is why one action is treated by criminal code while another is subject to the civil law.
Moral issue is when you make a promise to your friends. When someone buys a timeshare he/she does not make promise to anyone but he/she enters into a legal contract to service obligations (which is legally enforceable).
Ah, this is interesting. Criminal laws declare what the government deems threatening or harmful to public safety and welfare. Despite having a ton of criminal code, it still doesn't include all human behavior. Civil laws deal with the legal rights of citizens. Again, it doesn't address all human behavior. Both change continually. But morality is, simply, what is right or wrong, when dealing with human beings, whether you know them or not, whether there is a law governing it or not... it's about decency.
If a person thinks that it's decent to make a decision to renege on one's signed contract, strictly for one's own personal financial gain, knowing that it will harm others' financial condition, and the individual could reasonably manage to avoid doing this, if they chose to, then they are making an immoral choice. They may be okay with it and take their lumps within the law. But calling it decent, honest, fair or moral... or even amoral (without morality)... is, in itself, inaccurate. And seriously? Dishonest.
No one abandoning timeshare is forcing anyone else to pay more. The people that are left as an owners are choosing to perform on their contracts.
It is their own choice to make - whether to continue owing and to service their obligations or not.
So the one who abandons is forcing the others into a conundrum. The one who abandons has failed to fulfill his contractual agreement and then prohibits the others from having the option to fulfill their own original agreements... they may now no longer pay 1/50th of the maint expenses and participate in owning the jointly-owned resort as agreed. Now they have to choose between paying 1/30th (moral but it rots to pay a greater share) and joining those who've bailed (immoral and it rots to live with that when you care). In other words, those who abandon do impact the others negatively. I think that places this financial decision squarely in the morality category.
You don't have to agree. I'm not looking for an argument. I just wanted to have my say. And I have, so thank you.
