No white hats

I've thought for some time that the increasingly common practice of walking away from one's mortgage is a shameless, selfish, and immoral action, motivated solely by self-interest and utterly devoid of honor.  While I still believe that this is true in that it is wrong to break one's word, I've come to think that there is another side to the contract.  I'm not referring to the trite perspective that lenders should not lend to those less likely to be able to afford to pay back the loan.  It is obvious that mortgage lenders generally are greedy and motivated by profit and little else, but that does not absolve anyone from taking out a mortgage they cannot afford.  But while the mortgagee has the moral obligation to pay back the loan in full in a timely fashion, the contract itself does have the provision that the mortgagee makes the payments or surrenders the property.  Some might argue, then, that there is an implied choice to pay or default, particularly since the lender makes every attempt to insure that in the case of default the value of the property exceeds the principle of the loan (though in many instances that hasn't been the case in the recent real estate market).  While it is occasionally true that a default, foreclosure, or bankruptcy is not the fault of the borrower (e.g., sickness, accident, job loss), it is often the result of greed and irresponsibility.  But on the other side it is hard to sympathize with creditors that are also greedy and irresponsible.  There usually aren't any good guys in these situations.