It is immoral. You are extracting money from someone you should have helped for free. You are taking advantage of someone's current predicament for financial gain.
Now, I'm not totally against banking or loans. I understand the utility, probably better than most. But it does not start off as a fundamentally good thing. Not like freedom to do business is fundamentally a good thing, which can then be used to do bad. Interest based loans start off fundamentally bad and are justified by the ends.
The interest should offset the risk of default. There is a danger that loans don't get repaid, so the people that pay back their loans with interest are in effect subsidizing the people that don't pay back their loans.
Ok, you said absolutely nothing new here. But you are justifying it after the fact with hypotheticals. It does not change the moral wrong. If someone is trapped in a burning car and I refuse to pick up a rock an break the window unless they pay me to offset the risk to me that makes me a dick.
Demanding money for doing nothing but loaning money is wrong. That you can make an argument about how you deserve the money for taking risk does not make the fundamental transaction morally good, it just justifies the small immorality to sustain a system that has benefits.
I'm not saying banking has no good, or that interest is not justified as a way to sustain it. I'm saying it is fundamentally immoral. It is usury.
Doesn't matter the same way that usury is morally wrong, so is not paying back your debt. If you have a sophisticated society that is interested in helping one another, "defaulting" doesn't happen, therefore, nor should interest on loans.
You speak like a jew.
(post is archived)