Suppose the dead guy used the credit cards for hookers and porn sites, without his wife’s knowledge or consent. Wife still “morally obligated” to pay?
Only a small percentage.
But, let me ask you - If he bought her a diamond ring on credit, would you consider that a monetary benefit?
“Monetary benefit” is simply not relevant to this discussion. As bent out of shape as you seem to be over this, I strongly suggest you never study adverse possession, contracts, sales, secured transactions, and definitely no criminal defense. I think your head would explode.
Sure it is, but here the thing. We don’t care legally, morally, or any other ally. The credit company chose to risk lending him money despite the possibility of it not being paid back. They didn’t do this out of any moral responsibility. They did it to make a profit. They could have not given him credit or required a co-signer, but they didn’t. They took a risk and it didn’t work out (or maybe it did as it entirely possible that they made a profit on him even with the loss) . No third party is responsible for reimbursing them for making bad decisions.
Well, except for you and me and all the other people who pay their bills.
And cover the bad debts of deadbeats.
How rude!
Let me ask you this beowulff,
Suppose the husband signed a contract with the credit card company that explicitly stated that, in the event of death by the cardholder, all debts would be voided out.
Any moral obligation to pay off a debt then?
Add bankruptcy to the list of subjects you really don’t want to study.
You seem to be forgetting that the credit card company also entered an agreement, fully of their own free will, and willingly drew up contracts that said if the cardholder dies, and there is nothing in the estate, too bad for them. They also signed a contract here and there is nothing immoral about expecting them to eat this as a loss when they willingly agreed to this in the first place. Now they are trying to get around their own contract terms by pressuring the wife for money.
If you shoplift you are deliberately defrauding the store. There is no contract there, no agreement between 2 parties. It doesn’t work as a comparison. The man died, he did not attempt to defraud his credit card companies.
I’m not covering their bill. I would, but I’m not.
That is an interesting question.
My first impulse is to say, yes, that it is irrelevant from a moral standpoint to renege on debt incurred, regardless of what the contract says.
But, if this is explicitly spelled out, than I might be OK with it.
How is it reneging on the debt when the contract specifically allows for it?
If in some way the wife was complicit in conspiracy to avoid payment, then she would have a moral obligation. If she did not ask for and did not demand the benefits the husband provided, and did not intend that he would obtain them without paying them back… Then she has no obligation, moral or otherwise.
If the spending behaviour was normal for the circumstances - as normal as can be when out of work and sick - then… no obligation. If it was a Madoff-like scheme to obtain as much money or goods as possible in anticipation of a debt-evading eventuality (death or bankruptcy) then the people also benefitting from the scheme do have a moral, and likely legal obligation.
The wife was named insurance beneficiary specifically so she would receive the benefit. The insurance was not taken out to pay the husband’s debts. On this law and morals agree in the minds of civilized people.
Are we paying for the deadbeats and died-broke credit card holders? Of course we are. It’s figured into the level of interest, the 2% or 3% premium paid by most merchants, and the float time before the merchant gets paid. Am I a thief for taking advantage of free credit if I pay in full before the monthly due date? I get interest-free money for a month or more, courtesy of merchants and beowulff who is morally bound to pay only the minimum amount on his card.
Because morality is a higher law than contract law.
For the sake of my blood pressure, I shall bow out of this trainwreck.
But it is specifically and explicitly spelled out in every credit card contract that upon the death of the cardholder, the legaql obligation to repay the debt dies with him. The CC company knows full well these are the conditions under which all CC contracts are signed.
Attempting to collect a debt they are not legally entitled to from a grieving widow is morally wrong.
So answer that one.
Are you being immoral by paying the balance in full on your card each month, thus getting free credit when you know the kind generous and forgiving card issuers want you to pay as little as possible and float the rest at 18% to 30%pa?
Or are you being perfectly moral by following the terms and conditions laid down by card issuer in an agreement freely and with knowledge aforethought entered into by both parties?
How is this different than dying with an outstanding balance?
No, I don’t see anything wrong with that.
However, most of the posters have been emphatic about how it’s not only moral, but legal to ignore spousal debt after death.
Well, that’s not true in Arizona, and in several other states. And, FWIW, I agree with that position.
Is it morally wrong to attempt to collect a debt you are not legally entitled to?
Sure, but that’s not what we are discussing.