Jim and the Indian Rub

Just for clarification, "the rub" refers to where you have a problem with something in philosophy. Totally technical term.

I've been putting off writing this one for a while, because I'm unsure how to proceed, so let me review the key notions that bring me to this issue:

Causal relationship between utterances and actions.
Oaths being taken.
Objectivism- appeals to a fact of the matter intrinsic to the universe.
Absoloutism- oaths are not to ever be violated.

So, naturally, we come to a situation in which we have a complete pacifist, Jim, scootin along in a jungle until he comes upon a scene where some Indians are about to be executed. The leader of the soldiers sees you as an honored foreigner, and decides to give Jim a choice: kill one, save the rest, or do nothing, and let them all die.

So, I'm rather sure that everyone will go for the former option, because one life to save a large number of others is a reasonable exchange to common sense.

Yet, Pedro is essentially put into a situation in which he must make a choice, both of which end with at least one person being killed. While there's something to be spoken of when it comes to actively or passively killing people, the rub exists in his inner conflict.

Should he contradict his devotion to pacifism in order to save a large amount of people? Mind you, he does have to kill the man himself.

Originally, when I considered this situation, I spoke of it as a situation that will never happen, and that it is set up precisely in such a way that there's only one decent choice to make. Coming from a D&D background, I hate this thought experiment. It doesn't even give you the option to kill the guards, the leader, or sacrifice yourself in place of the Indians. Furthermore, it's strange that the men lined up are not given a chance to speak with Jim, since self-sacrifice is something prized in Indian culture. But, even though I tossed this story by the wayside before as unfair, it does represent an issue inherent in my moral structure.

If directly contradicting an oath is the only way to bring about a better state of affairs, then should it be done on moral grounds?

Short answer, yes.

Long answer:

There are at least two ways to approach the situation now. The first, and easiest, lies in the oath-taking process. If there happens to be a "fail-safe oath" which comes to essentially mean "if it ever is the case that contradicting an oath will directly lead to a better overall state of affairs, then I will do so." The issue with this, the consequentialist will say, is that what is essentially being allowed here is a fallback to utility just because deontology doesn't cut it, and has a deficiency here. Is it really a fallback move? Certainly, but knowing when to retreat is essential in war. If nothing else, at the end of the day, isn't morality supposed to bring about a better state of affairs because people will act in a certain way?

The second, without the fail-safe, is for Jim to commit a kind of "moral suicide," where he directly contradicts one of his foundational principles, pacifism, in order that he might slay one man to save many. Having the contradiction, the problem now comes to what he should do next. I think what has to happen next is that Jim needs to reinvent himself from the ground up, in light of the strange experience he has just had. Can he go back to being a pacifist? If he does, what's the point, given that another situation may happen just like when he came upon the Indians.

And here is the problem. What ought one do in situations when it is clearly the better thing to do to contradict promises that have been made? Well, initially in order to protect or save lives sounds very acceptable to me. My dedication to morality doesn't outweigh other peoples' lives, if they are at stake and I can do something about it. I think this should be the main criterion for contradicting promises, if lives are at stake. For, if oaths are made and consistently broken because to do so simply brings seemingly better things about, then the oaths don't mean much. Yet, they pale in comparison to lives being on the line.

So, my answer is essentially "An oath may be broken if doing so will save lives through its breaking."

From here I need to do some more thinking and reading, because inherent in this is a kind of "duty ranking," because I obviously think that saving lives is a greater duty than simply keeping to an oath, in Jim's case, pacifism.

There's more to be said on this contradiction stuff, like:

You're a man of your word.
Your best friend makes you promise to not tell his wife that he's cheating on her.
The wife has a right to know that something is affecting her marriage.

Stuff like this does come about.

As for my answer, another criticism to be laid at it is "If you're willing to lay aside an oath to bring about an overall better state of affairs, then why not just use utility to guide you?"

My response to that is this: Always going for the greatest ratio of good stuff over bad can easily lead to one committing betrayal, which I'll not countenance.

Yay, philosophy!