Much like today, ancient Greece had ongoing problems with wealth distribution. Generally, wealth accumulated among those who were already wealthy. Stemming from this inequality, Socrates surmised that is might not always be ethical to repay debts: if a lunatic were intent on harming another or committing murder, it would be wrong to return their weapons to them. Socrates reasoned that, therefore, paying back debts is not justice a priori. Rather, the overall consequences of repaying debts should be the factors considered when deciding whether repayment is moral. In ancient Rome, this idea manifested a bit more concretely. Similarly, wealth inequality was common throughout Roman history – and peasant and slave revolts happened intermittently. At the risk of generalizing: crops suffered, labor productivity decreased, and society as a whole paid the costs.
The point to take away here is not that you shouldn’t pay debts. Rather, the point is to differentiate the perspective of ancient philosophers about debt, namely that to them economics was a moral philosophy. In today’s capitalist environment rife with extreme individualism, greed is the norm and the study of economics is often seen as tool for accumulating wealth. So, consider both perspectives.
If you are interested in the history and philosophy of the economy, bankruptcy, and debt, stay tuned for my blog posts. And, if you are thinking about filing, reach out to us at www.lifebacklaw.com.