Psychic

Guys why not taking it in terms of greater good!
if we consider the above example, if the second party has not been delibrately hiding information that is, then we can have to possiblities:

at times fullifing the promise would bring about immoral acts and harm other people, then it wouldn't be moral to keep the promise.

conversely, if keeping the promise wouldn't bring about a severely immoral acts, and wouldn't cause others significant amounts of harm then I think keeping your promise is accepted morally, because it will supposedly benefit the second party, and will also supposedly benefit you in the near future for starting a reciprocal altruism pact.

Psychic

Guys why not taking it in terms of greater good!
if we consider the above example, if the second party has not been delibrately hiding information that is, then we can have to possiblities:

at times fullifing the promise would bring about immoral acts and harm other people, then it wouldn't be moral to keep the promise.

conversely, if keeping the promise wouldn't bring about a severely immoral acts, and wouldn't cause others significant amounts of harm then I think keeping your promise is accepted morally, because it will supposedly benefit the second party, and will also supposedly benefit you in the near future for starting a reciprocal altruism pact.

Psycho Economist

If you can show me an objective "greater good" we can talk about that. But different people have different priorities.Says you, who values not harming others over keeing promises. But an opinion I agree with is still an opinion.So we're back to my first reply... there are consequences, mainly to one's reputation in future dealings. But is any moral imperative inferred from those consequences more than an abstraction?

An aside: I don't think a person could role play long and not understand, if not accept, moral subjectivism.

Psychic

well... actually I do understand the moral subjectivism (as you put it) but I am not sure I have a quite enough experience when dealing with it. so I will ask this question wither it will be appropriate or not, but I do require and answer.

So morality is subjective, what do you mean by that as a reply to my post? the two possible answers I can imagine are:

first, you are implying that morality is subjective, so we can't leave it to the indviduals to asses or think of how moral something is, simply, because different individuals would reach different answers to moral questions. consequently individuals should not worry themselves about doing the moral thinking for they will always be non-consistent with one another. and some elite group of philosophers or any higher authority should do the thinking and everyone else should obey. (rule utilitirianist moral code set by an authority)

second, you are implying that morality is very subjective when individuals apply it to each act as a separate entity (act utilitrianism), so individuals should always think in terms of rule utilitirianism and set their moral standards, then apply these standards to all different kinds of situations. thus leading the individual to live a very strict life, and to lose the usual flexibility of the human mind.

I can't think of a third answer! and I see both of these as defective!

Psycho Economist

This is starting to stray off-topic... it's well enough to ask "what do we value more than keeping promises?" and we can have countless different answers for countless different reasons... and that's relevant. But there are threads about the merits and inadaquacies of moral subjectivism out there if you want to talk about it some more.

Secondly, moral subjectivism (vis. moral objectivism and moral relativism) has nothing to do with what one's ethics are. It's about whether one's ethics are the "one true way" to resolve moral / ethical dilemmas or not. As utilitarian (or as Kantian) as I may live my life, I recognize that it's because utilitarianism is in step with my values... not because it's "right" in some objective or demonstrable sense.

What I mean with respect to your post is that there is no "real" greater good out there. You want to be a utilitarian and renege on your promise instead of hurting someone, that's your business and I will personally aplaud you for it. But not everyone will and they're not sociopaths or ethical lightweights for seeing the world differently.

Strawman.
Non sequiter upon strawman.
Strawman upon non sequiter upon strawman.

Yeah, people will disagree. They disagree because they are all capable of making moral decisions acording to their own ethical standards... which are for most people the emotional and unsystematic dictates of one's conscience (and that's fine with me).

That potential for disagreement is why we institute laws that hold enforcable minimum standards of conduct and why we fight to make and keep those laws representative of our values. Our laws do not dictate morality; what we can agree to in our moralities dictates the law.

(Don't be offended if I don't reply back to you before Monday. I'm leaving town for the weekend.)