The Other Michael

This topic occurred to me while reading one of the support threads.

To what degree does a promise or oath bind a person to a stated course of action?

Once you've given a promise, do you have to follow through even if new evidence is found that shows the promise was made based on inadequate evidence, and that you'd not have made the promise if you'd had the new evidence available?

Are promises "sacred"?

If "a man is only as good as his word" is a reputation really damaged if reneging on a promise proves to be a wise thing to do?

At what point can a promise be justifiably dropped or modified?

What if the promise causes you to act in a way you find morally repugnant, or causes you to inflict damage upon an innocent party (even if it does still bring benefit to the person to who the promise was originally made)?

cheers,
Michael

Psycho Economist

Promises get their power because we keep a record (sometimes conscious, sometimes implicit) of who we can trust and who we can't. We've spent most of our time since we developed language and a lot of the time before operating in small tribes. Outsiders were obvious and untrustworthy people in the group got a reputation quickly.

That said, a promise is only as binding as the consequences of breaking it are unpleasant. People have much less hesitation to cheat a stranger they doubt they will encounter again than someone upon whom they may depend later... because that person may refuse to help them later or may further the cheat's reputation as unsavory.

As for the conditions under which a promise can be broken or renegotiated, contract law shows pretty clearly what most people think: You don't have to fulfill a promise if the other party acted in bad faith. You can alter a promise if both parties consent.

A man (in the eyes of others) is only as good as his reputation. In a situation where that man is not likely to be on the suckered end of a promise made in bad faith, then a reputation for breaking promises is very dangerous.

On the question of keeping uncomfortable commitments... again, if the other party acted in bad faith (e.g. was willfully misleading), others will tend to forgive it provided you can demonstrate the other party did act in bad faith.

If the promse was negotiated in good faith, it will depend to others on how repugnant the act you refused is compared to breaking a promise (and also essentially having stolen whatever remuneration you've already received for the act which you now refuse to commit). The third option is, of course, renegotiating the promise if the other party is understanding enough of your situation to consent.

Psychic

Psycho econimist, I totally agree. And to elaborate more, and elucidate the different factors controlling our honesty I'd like to add the following.

I think the ultimate understanding of such matter would stem from evolutionary psychology. so I am gonna take you back to the ancient Hunter-gatherer society one more. when an individual's reputation mattered the most. having a bad reputation at such society would mean that on those days when your hunt is not-so-well, death can easily come, you won't be fended against invaders...etc etc. so in short you'll lose every advantage of reciprocal altruism, losing the survival advantage offered by such system.

Here comes the human's strong sense of Justice, and the primitive rage we all feel upon beholding acts of injustice. Altruistic genes has been favourly presereved by natural selection, but such altruistic genes exopose their carrier to being taken advantage of, so easily. that's why these genes had to be protected. this protection came in the form of our (conscious or subconscious) judgement on people around us, if someone has been offering help to you, you are more likely to offer him help when he needs it, and vice versa.

Now say that you've helped someone and he wasn't a true altruists and took advantage of you. then you'll feel the fury of injustice in you and try to punish that individual, either by directly causing him harm in front of everybody, or by Gossiping about him! That way your sense of justice served to protect you from future exploitation and helped the whole tribe avoid that individual.
Promises can be understood in a broader terms, that each time you accept any good turn from an individual, you are actually making the unspoken promise to return his good turn.

Now to be a rule utilitirian, I would come to the conclusion that keeping promises is Moral act, and doing otherwise should be regarded immoral, IMO. because if all individuals kept their promises, this would lead to a higher levels of reciprocal altruism in the society, which is certainly a benefit for everyone.

So keeping promises has an evolutionary advantage to the whole society and there is nothing sacred, IMO, about promises.
and also we come to the point that the society doesn't expect of you to show altruistic behavior towrads those individuals with a bad reputation.
And, when breaking your promise, you have to be aware of the consequences. you can be punished, and you can be the center of gossips around. if breaking your promise brings a better good for the society as whole, then this won't subject you to any kind of derogatory gossips, and the society will deem your action as good turn for the whole society. Thus contributing to maintain a stable levels of reciprocal altruist behavior in society, EVEN at the cost of the possiblity of being considered immoral by the person you made the promise to. defamed by one person, and considered honorable by the society.

Jamie_L

Promises are not sacred, but they are important. The relative moral costs and benefits of keeping or breaking a promise have to be weighed. Promises are also subject to reconsideration in the light of new information, even if there was no "bad faith" involved.

If a politician promises one thing based on his knowledge before getting into office, but once in office discovers new information making his promise a very unwise thing for his constituents, should he keep his promise to his constituents at the cost of doing them harm? What if a District Attourney promises to put John Q. Smith behind bars for a horrible murder. Then evidence becomes available that shows someone else most likely committed the murder. Should the D.A. be held to his promise? Of course not. New information clearly can effect how "sacred" a promise is.

Likewise, suppose you promise to make an appointment, but something dramatically more important comes up - like a death in the family. One is usually forgiven for backing out of the promise.

A man is judged by his reputation, and that reputation includes doing the right thing as much as keeping promises. I believe a man who does the right thing in spite of an earlier promise to do otherwise is usually held to be a better man than one who blindly sticks to a promise in the face of evidence that it is a bad idea.

Jamie

Psycho Economist

Well, if you want to address that question specifically, the D.A. candidate is making his campaign "promise" in bad faith, since he does not have the power to hold up his end of the bargain: the incarceration of Smith. He can only prosecute Smith; only the jury has the power to incarcerate Smith... or choose not to.

Again, bad faith on the part of one promisor is the only thing that can anull the obligation upon the other party. Nothing necessarily prevents consentual renegotiation.

Psychic

As I see your posts all agreeing that promises are not sacred and what matters is doing the right thing, I would like also to add that this change in attitude towards promises has been one of the changes since the Victorian England.

At the time of the nobles back in time “character” was more important than “personality”, for example it doesn’t matter that you are charming, well-spoken, and handsome if you are not a man of your word. That’s what mattered the most. Promises were really sacred at those days. It doesn’t matter if what you do is right or wrong, as everybody understands that you are just “keeping your word”.

I can’t imagine living in a world like that one.

Jamie_L

Perhaps in terms of legal contracts, but in terms of promises, I disagree.

I accept that my D.A. example is flawed because of poor word choice on my part. Suppose the D.A. promises (and not a campaign promise - just a promise made in the media) to prosecute John Q. Smith and seek the death penalty. Later, the evidence is revealed. The D.A. and his office find the evidence very convincing, and believe John Q. Smith is not the right man to prosecute. The public, however, being caught up in emotion, does not believe in the strength of the evidence, and calls on the D.A. to prosecute John Q. Smith anyway.

Should the D.A. stick to his promise and prosecute a man he believes is innocent, in a case that he believes he cannot win, when he believes the real killer is still out there?

Jamie

Psycho Economist

Should he bite the bullet, pay the consequences of breaking his promise, or seek consenusal renegotiation (i.e. try to persuade the public that another suspect is guilty)? All three are valid options, each with their own consequences.

First of all, if there's sufficient evidence against this guy to justify a trial then he has a fiduciary responsibility to prosecute it regardless of campaign promises. But he does have the option of stalling the one trial while building a case against the other suspect. Then bring the other suspect to trial (by then the emotional fervor should be against the second suspect... unless the first was black and the second is white), and secure a conviction maybe even a death sentence.

With that done, the D.A. could either drop charges or drag it to trial anyway and have it dismissed on account of the second suspect's conviction.

I suppose that would amount to a renegotiation.

Jamie_L

Psycho Economist's replies bring up an interesting second moral question about promises:

Two parties agree to a promise. Later, new information comes to light. If this information had been known previously, one party never would have made the promise - perhaps even makes the party feel it is morally wrong to follow through with the promised action. If the first party seeks renegotiation, is it moral for the second party to force the first party to keep their promise?

Jamie

Psycho Economist

If the second party misled the first, renegotiation isn't even necessary. The first party was defrauded by the second.

But if the second party didn't mislead the first I see no reason why he ought to be obliged to accomodate the second's ignorance. That's what seperates "nice" guys from those who are only "not bad".