why is it ethically wrong to collect odious debt? why would lead lenders cancel a country's debt on the rounds that the the lending transaction was unethical or unjust in the first place? what would utilitarians, riht-based ethics or other ethical principles conclude?
2006-11-03 09:07:20 · 1 answers · asked by osi911 2 in Education & Reference ➔ Other - Education
It's first important to define "Odious Debt", which is debt that was incurred by a regime that does not serve the interests of the state. For example, if a country's leader borrows $10 billion dollars to suppress the country's people, then that debt does not serve the state.
The motives behind making odious debt attached to a regime instead of the state, is to make it less likely that people would lend to regimes for such purposes - since it's unlikely the debt would be repaid.
The obvious problem is defining when a debt serves the needs of the state, and when it does not. If a regime falls, it's in the new regime's best interest to try and claim as much outstanding debt as possible is "odious debt" - even if it's not.
I'll leave the last question to you.
2006-11-06 01:58:05 · answer #1 · answered by ³√carthagebrujah 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋