Conquer Club

Does anyone here have any personal code of ethics when it comes to promises?
Some promises can be seen as unreasonable to be expected to keep, and many break their oaths at these points, while others go to any length to keep their word.

Should certain people be expected to keep or break their word over others?
For example some might say it is honorable for a police officer to keep their word to a criminal, or that it's not inherently dishonorable for a spy to falsely swear allegiance to an enemy nation for the good of their homeland. I'm curious where most people draw these lines.

I voted "promises made under threat" and, with that option, it's kind of weird that some people voted for "none."

thegreekdog wrote:I voted "promises made under threat" and, with that option, it's kind of weird that some people voted for "none."

It is an interesting position to take, though it is a position argued by some philosophers of social contract.

Thomas Hobbes wrote:14.26 Even if a covenant is extorted by fear it is nevertheless valid in the
natural condition of men; for example, if I covenant with an enemy to give
money for the sake of preserving my life, I am bound to perform. For it is a
contract in which one transfers the right to life and the other transfers the
money. Thus, where there is no other law (as in the natural condition) that
prohibits performance, the covenant is valid. Thus a prisoner of war, if he
were to have taken his freedom on the condition that he afterwards pay the
price of his redemption, is obliged to pay it.

I am also curious what makes you feel unobliged to such promises in particular.
Do promises require some sense fairness and honor in your opinion, or do you find such promises to be invalid because of the mental state of the coerced individual, perhaps?

/ wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I voted "promises made under threat" and, with that option, it's kind of weird that some people voted for "none."

It is an interesting position to take, though it is a position argued by some philosophers of social contract.

Thomas Hobbes wrote:14.26 Even if a covenant is extorted by fear it is nevertheless valid in the
natural condition of men; for example, if I covenant with an enemy to give
money for the sake of preserving my life, I am bound to perform. For it is a
contract in which one transfers the right to life and the other transfers the
money. Thus, where there is no other law (as in the natural condition) that
prohibits performance, the covenant is valid. Thus a prisoner of war, if he
were to have taken his freedom on the condition that he afterwards pay the
price of his redemption, is obliged to pay it.

I am also curious what in particular makes you feel unobliged to such promises in particular.
Do promises require some sense fairness and honor in your opinion, or do you find such promises to be invalid because of the mental state of the coerced individual, perhaps?

I voted for promises made under a threat, to my enemy and for the greater good.

Reasons: Under a threat isn't really a willing promise.
To my enemy, well lets just say that I would be the jerk to kick balls and have no honor in a fight. Why, you ask. Because I want to live.
Lastly, doesn't the greater good and love trump all or something?

/ wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I voted "promises made under threat" and, with that option, it's kind of weird that some people voted for "none."

It is an interesting position to take, though it is a position argued by some philosophers of social contract.

Thomas Hobbes wrote:14.26 Even if a covenant is extorted by fear it is nevertheless valid in the
natural condition of men; for example, if I covenant with an enemy to give
money for the sake of preserving my life, I am bound to perform. For it is a
contract in which one transfers the right to life and the other transfers the
money. Thus, where there is no other law (as in the natural condition) that
prohibits performance, the covenant is valid. Thus a prisoner of war, if he
were to have taken his freedom on the condition that he afterwards pay the
price of his redemption, is obliged to pay it.

I am also curious what makes you feel unobliged to such promises in particular.
Do promises require some sense fairness and honor in your opinion, or do you find such promises to be invalid because of the mental state of the coerced individual, perhaps?

Notwithstanding Hobbes's excellent point, the promise is invalid precisely because the individual making the promise was coerced. Given my legal education, my opinion on this also makes sense (not saying it's right, just explaining why).

kentington wrote:To my enemy, well lets just say that I would be the jerk to kick balls and have no honor in a fight. Why, you ask. Because I want to live.

That could explain why you're a liar who tries to talk privately with people on this site solely to f*ck them over. Thanks for admitting it.

pimpdave wrote:

kentington wrote:To my enemy, well lets just say that I would be the jerk to kick balls and have no honor in a fight. Why, you ask. Because I want to live.

That could explain why you're a liar who tries to talk privately with people on this site solely to f*ck them over. Thanks for admitting it.

Do you feel like I have made a promise I didn't keep? Do you feel like you are my enemy?

The ones you forget about.
Actually, I don't think it's OK to break these, it's just those are the ones I remember breaking.

Outdated and under threat are my two selections.

I also added in personal loss; however that is under the assumption that the great personal loss was an unknown at the time of the promise making (ie a later development); if the loss was known then id remove it as "ok to break" since you shouldnt have made the promise in the first place.

Finally I also added enemy; though in hindsight it is a) the same as a promise that was never intended to be kept (ie the goal is manipulation) and b) I would only condone either one under very extreme circumstances (world wars etc).

Funkyterrance wrote:The ones you forget about.
Actually, I don't think it's OK to break these, it's just those are the ones I remember breaking.

Actually, the weakest reason for not keeping your word is probably "oops, I forgot". Well, maybe not the weakest but certainly the most bloody annoying. I mean, I turned up.
Sorry, chanelling old memories....

jonesthecurl wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:The ones you forget about.
Actually, I don't think it's OK to break these, it's just those are the ones I remember breaking.

Actually, the weakest reason for not keeping your word is probably "oops, I forgot". Well, maybe not the weakest but certainly the most bloody annoying. I mean, I turned up.
Sorry, chanelling old memories....

I won't argue that's its not weak. All I can say is it was genuinely unintentional. For the record, I'm not referring to BIG promises, but eency weency ones. For example, eating the last of the captain crunch.

Funkyterrance wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:The ones you forget about.
Actually, I don't think it's OK to break these, it's just those are the ones I remember breaking.

Actually, the weakest reason for not keeping your word is probably "oops, I forgot". Well, maybe not the weakest but certainly the most bloody annoying. I mean, I turned up.
Sorry, chanelling old memories....

I won't argue that's its not weak. All I can say is it was genuinely unintentional. For the record, I'm not referring to BIG promises, but eency weency ones. For example, eating the last of the captain crunch.

So the promise in question would need to fall under multiple caveats to be acceptable in that case?
Forgotten + Unimportant, rather than just one or the other.
I can see how that might be more acceptable, I think many people forget/break/procrastinate a minor promise if it is inconvenient.
Perhaps a person promises to pick up more orange juice later that day, only to find the parking lot full upon arrival. There might even be half a carton left in the fridge anyhow. Most people wouldn't be offended if the task was forestalled.

You didn't get the goddam OJ AGAIN????

OK that's it, you're out the door right now!
Ten seconds before I start shootin'.

/ wrote:So the promise in question would need to fall under multiple caveats to be acceptable in that case?
Forgotten + Unimportant, rather than just one or the other.
I can see how that might be more acceptable, I think many people forget/break/procrastinate a minor promise if it is inconvenient.
Perhaps a person promises to pick up more orange juice later that day, only to find the parking lot full upon arrival. There might even be half a carton left in the fridge anyhow. Most people wouldn't be offended if the task was forestalled.

Actually as far as the orange juice example goes, I would wait for traffic, etc., if I actually did remember the OJ promise. In the earlier cereal example, this really did happen where I just went for the cereal one afternoon and literally forgot I had promised not to eat it. I just don't think I tend to think of food in that light. I suppose either way it's being insensitive to some degree though, hence my embarrassed emoticon.

*Promises against the greater good.

e.g. a kid says they'll confide in you as long as you promise not to tell anyone, and then you find out they're being abused. Obviously it's better to end the abuse than to keep the promise since it would not be in their best interest to do so.

*Promises made under threat.

As TDG says, the promise is invalid because it was coerced. In the Hobbes quote, he seems to think that it is acceptable to barter with a person's right to life. I disagree. I believe a person's right to life is inherent and it is wrong any time it is taken away (or threatened to be taken away), except in the cases of justice or defense. Even in his example of a POW, I disagree. A POW should be treated fairly, without the threat of death for non-compliance.

Hobbes wrote:14.26 Even if a covenant is extorted by fear it is nevertheless valid in the
natural condition of men; for example, if I covenant with an enemy to give
money for the sake of preserving my life, I am bound to perform. For it is a
contract in which one transfers the right to life and the other transfers the
money. Thus, where there is no other law (as in the natural condition) that
prohibits performance, the covenant is valid. Thus a prisoner of war, if he
were to have taken his freedom on the condition that he afterwards pay the
price of his redemption, is obliged to pay it.

"Never promise something you don't intend to keep", is a code I try to live by. An exception is frequently being made for CC however. Breaking promises on this site, often makes me able to hold promises made elsewhere.

I dont see why outdated is so unpopular; somethings have specific life-expectency; once thats over it is no longer relevant. I am not saying stop following a promise just because its old, but outdated implies lack of current relevance rather than just being an old promise.

For example: "Wife I promise to always buy you milk for you cups of coffee"... 10 years late Wife no longer drinks coffee so I no longer furfil promise. Nothing ethically wrong with that imo.

Lootifer wrote:I dont see why outdated is so unpopular; somethings have specific life-expectency; once thats over it is no longer relevant. I am not saying stop following a promise just because its old, but outdated implies lack of current relevance rather than just being an old promise.

For example: "Wife I promise to always buy you milk for you cups of coffee"... 10 years late Wife no longer drinks coffee so I no longer furfil promise. Nothing ethically wrong with that imo.

YOU AMORAL MONSTER!

Anyway, I don't really know how to answer the question.

A promise is essentially putting on the one side the delivery of a thing you promised which will have a certain cost to you and on the other side the gain of respect from yourself and from your peers because you kept your word. If the cost is too big compared to the reward (or compared to the potential cost of breaking the promise) then you'll break your promise, otherwise you won't.
I guess some people put a very large value on the promise in their own eyes (aka: "I'm a man of my word!"). I'd be interested in knowing if people like these truly value the promise in itself or they value other people knowing they are a man of their word, which can have benefits.

So, I guess what we're discussing is how much value you place on seeing yourself as "honourable" and making others see you as "honourable". I guess we construe it as inappropriate when someone places less value on this than we do and we are offended that he broke his promise in this way (whereas if the cost to him would have been such that you yourself in his shoes would have broken the promise, then you can't really blame him).
i.e. promising to pick you up from work and not doing it cause grandma died = ok;
promising to pick you up from work and not doing it cause decided to get shitfaced with friends instead != ok;

I'm sure there's been many interesting studies done in this area. Where the hell are the sociologists when you need them ?

Haggis_McMutton wrote:
A promise is essentially putting on the one side the delivery of a thing you promised which will have a certain cost to you and on the other side the gain of respect from yourself and from your peers because you kept your word. If the cost is too big compared to the reward (or compared to the potential cost of breaking the promise) then you'll break your promise, otherwise you won't.
I guess some people put a very large value on the promise in their own eyes (aka: "I'm a man of my word!"). I'd be interested in knowing if people like these truly value the promise in itself or they value other people knowing they are a man of their word, which can have benefits.

So, I guess what we're discussing is how much value you place on seeing yourself as "honourable" and making others see you as "honourable". I guess we construe it as inappropriate when someone places less value on this than we do and we are offended that he broke his promise in this way (whereas if the cost to him would have been such that you yourself in his shoes would have broken the promise, then you can't really blame him).
i.e. promising to pick you up from work and not doing it cause grandma died = ok;
promising to pick you up from work and not doing it cause decided to get shitfaced with friends instead != ok;

I'm sure there's been many interesting studies done in this area. Where the hell are the sociologists when you need them ?

The short answer from me is that I don't value the details of the promise itself as I find the actual details/objects of the promise are more or less immaterial. Someone not having milk for their coffee is not going to cause undue suffering but the fact that someone promised and didn't fulfill could cause suffering in an emotional way. Imho it is indeed the emotional side of promises that are important since there will always be uncontrollable circumstances preventing some promises from being kept and grudges are not held when this happens, at least not by rational adults.
As far as the breaking of the promise and reputation I personally give very little weight to my social reputation for doing so and very much weight to my reputation to myself. When I break a promise I feel doubly terrible for not only have I failed to fulfill an important part of my own moral code(not intentionally breaking promises) I have let down another person who expected me to keep my promise, therefore hurting them emotionally and thereby going against another personal code. The fact that I would be a reputed "promise breaker" to others does not enter into it since if I do break many promises, that's exactly what I would be and I would deserve such a title.
For all those reading this and wondering if any of this contrasts with my behavior on conquer club, the answer is no and yes. No, you won't find me breaking a promise on here but yes you may witness me ignoring the emotions of select members since a few of you don't even register on my charts as far as ethics are concerned. Are those apples palatable?

Funkyterrance wrote:
The short answer from me is that I don't value the details of the promise itself as I find the actual details/objects of the promise are more or less immaterial. Someone not having milk for their coffee is not going to cause undue suffering but the fact that someone promised and didn't fulfill could cause suffering in an emotional way. Imho it is indeed the emotional side of promises that are important since there will always be uncontrollable circumstances preventing some promises from being kept and grudges are not held when this happens, at least not by rational adults.
As far as the breaking of the promise and reputation I personally give very little weight to my social reputation for doing so and very much weight to my reputation to myself. When I break a promise I feel doubly terrible for not only have I failed to fulfill an important part of my own moral code(not intentionally breaking promises) I have let down another person who expected me to keep my promise, therefore hurting them emotionally and thereby going against another personal code. The fact that I would be a reputed "promise breaker" to others does not enter into it since if I do break many promises, that's exactly what I would be and I would deserve such a title.
For all those reading this and wondering if any of this contrasts with my behavior on conquer club, the answer is no and yes. No, you won't find me breaking a promise on here but yes you may witness me ignoring the emotions of select members since a few of you don't even register on my charts as far as ethics are concerned. Are those apples palatable?

So please spare us the long answer...

jonesthecurl wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:
The short answer from me is that I don't value the details of the promise itself as I find the actual details/objects of the promise are more or less immaterial. Someone not having milk for their coffee is not going to cause undue suffering but the fact that someone promised and didn't fulfill could cause suffering in an emotional way. Imho it is indeed the emotional side of promises that are important since there will always be uncontrollable circumstances preventing some promises from being kept and grudges are not held when this happens, at least not by rational adults.
As far as the breaking of the promise and reputation I personally give very little weight to my social reputation for doing so and very much weight to my reputation to myself. When I break a promise I feel doubly terrible for not only have I failed to fulfill an important part of my own moral code(not intentionally breaking promises) I have let down another person who expected me to keep my promise, therefore hurting them emotionally and thereby going against another personal code. The fact that I would be a reputed "promise breaker" to others does not enter into it since if I do break many promises, that's exactly what I would be and I would deserve such a title.
For all those reading this and wondering if any of this contrasts with my behavior on conquer club, the answer is no and yes. No, you won't find me breaking a promise on here but yes you may witness me ignoring the emotions of select members since a few of you don't even register on my charts as far as ethics are concerned. Are those apples palatable?

So please spare us the long answer...

Ok jonesy but to those who are interested the long answer is available in this lovely four volume desk set:

My favourite line from classic UK comedy "The Vicar of Dibley" was this...

The short answer is "No.".
The long answer is "Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.".