Ethics Paper

The subprime-mortgage crisis began in 2007. It was the result of a slew of societal missteps through the use of toxic assets and caused a large recession to occur. This crisis can be deemed to have been the cause of several sources. I will argue that the players most responsible for this crisis are the homeowners. Taking out money for their mortgage that they knew they would not be able to pay off, the homeowners acted unethically, taking a “rights” approach while they should have taken a “common good” approach.
While many may argue that it was in fact the fault of the banks and brokers and lenders who convinced homeowners to make such unethical decisions, I believe in the end it is the end choice that matters rather than the process that brings you to that choice. The homeowners, in taking out a loan they knew they couldn’t pay, were taking a rights approach. They went by the notion that it was their right to freely choose what they do with their lives. However, this choice represents an ethical flaw it that it damages the economy and consequently many people. By taking such money out, the people were not keeping their end of the bargain and were acting selfishly purely to benefit their own needs of acquired land. This however resulted in a large surge of such ethical decisions and all came crashing down. This is due to the fact that everyone deemed it their right to act in a manner most fitting to their lives. However, while the rights approach can be applicable to causing ethical decisions in many situations, in the subprime-mortgage crisis it caused in the downfall of our nation’s economy.
I argue that if the homeowners had taken the common good approach, they would have been able to maintain such a crisis and still benefited themselves. In considering the welfare of those around them and the possible vulnerability that taking out such loans would place on the community, the homeowners would have been able to make a rational, ethical decision. If the homeowners had taken out a loan(s) that they would be able to pay back after a duration of time, then the market would not have come crashing down. In order to make such a decision, the homeowners would have had to think from the perspective of community. They had to stay bound to the idea that strength lies in togetherness and working towards the common good. In doing so, the homeowners would have been able to make the decision to limit themselves and make more rational decisions rather than falling to the urges of lenders and banks.
The reason I am not making banks and lenders the most responsible for this is because their standpoint is that they did not necessarily hide the facts in entirety. Many of the homeowners if not all were completely aware of the implications and possible damages of their loan endeavors. It was not their job to make such a choice, while it was the job of the lenders and banks to do anything they could in order to make a profit. The homeowners, however, in making the ethical decision to decline such an offer and take a reasonable loan, would have still given the banks a profit and prevented themselves and their community as a whole from suffering in the long run.
A crisis caused by the search for short-term benefits results in a major long-term disaster. Caused by unethical endeavors and lack of a common good mindset, I deem the homeowners as the most responsible for the subprime-mortgage crisis. I do still want to note that many others were greatly involved and also at a great fault.