During our discussion on Thursday, I found it interesting that we could not come up with a proper term for the failure to follow through with a promise. Such an instance is not necessarily a lie, but rather an overestimation of one's command of the future.Typically when a promise is made, the promiser has every intention of following through with it. If the promiser never had any such intention, it would in fact be a lie and could not be termed a promise at all. As was stated, the future is so uncertain that it almost seems foolish to promise something when you are unable to ensure, with absolute certainty, that the action will be completed.
Suppose we make a distinction between an promise unfulfilled and a promise broken, the former being a failure due extenuating circumstances and the latter being a failure due to an individual's choice. From an objective standpoint, it seems unfair to punish someone for a promise unfulfilled because the failure was outside of his or her control (although one could also argue that the individual should avoid making promises that cannot be kept). The notion of being forgiven for unfulfilled promises becomes even trickier when applied to the present day creditor-debtor relationship. People buy houses, cars, and even furniture, all the while thinking that they will be able to keep up with the monthly payments. Initially they are successful, but eventually taxing circumstances (no pun intended) get the best of them and finances get tied up in other things. Loans fail to be paid off, and then legal actions must be taken. Typically people do not choose to skip bill payments for the thrill of it; if a payment is skipped, it's because the funds are lacking. Thus the promise of their payment is unfulfilled rather than broken, but because they are bound by contract, it cannot be brushed aside or forgiven. It seems a great deal of financial woes would be resolved if people made a habit of making purchases with currency rather than with promises.
Your last point is well-taken, ill-conceived promises of one-sort or another being at the root of any number of our national headaches. More broadly, I think the question of the moral character of the promise is a fascinating one that could stand a fuller philosophical treatment. However, I would venture that the moral fault in willfully breaking a promise seems to lie in selfishness; that is, following one's present whims instead of an obligation to another person that has been established by the promise-maker himself. Nietzsche's description of the slave morality as equating goodness and altruism or disinterestedness comes to mind.
ReplyDeleteI very much like this idea, as the distinction between these two ways of leaving a promise unfulfilled is an important one. In the first instance, wherein the agent fully intends to honor the promise but cannot due to outside circumstances, I think it is only fair to absolve him of any blame. I don't know that I should be mixing my two classes with Dr. J, but we recently read about Kant's separation of intent and consequence, and it would apply itself well here: the intent behind an action is what truly matters, as you can never be certain of the consequences it will bring. So, a "promise unfulfilled" would not cast a bad light on the agent.
ReplyDeleteHowever, consciously choosing to go against a promise would reflect poorly upon oneself; it is not entirely dissimilar to lying. Patrick's description of this promise-breaking is perhaps more apt, though.