More On Oaths

Forgive my lack of updates. Midterms and an increasing workload do not mix well with me. As an aside, I do have the two Wheel of Time RPG books now, and I can't wait until I get a game in with them!

Today I want to talk about the stringency of oaths.

That is, to what strictness ought an oath, once taken be held?

Here I am going to talk about objectivism and absolutism, with the real juicy bits to follow along that bring up problems for this concept.

To begin with objectivism. The notion is that there is a fact of the matter in moral discourse, that we appeal to a kind of truth which may be given to us by a deity, or may be "woven" into the fabric of the universe. There's this fellow, Shafer-Landau, and if you read his book, Whatever Happened To Good and Evil?, he'll claim that we at least, when we speak to one another about common topics and morality, we act as if there is some fact of the matter. There is one thing about objectivism, and aspect that it has that I prefer over other stances to the subject:

Moral Progress. Yes, they're capitalized.

What this means in perspective is that only through objectivism may we at least say that, indeed, we are closer to emulating the moral truth, which makes us better.

If it is not objectivism, then one cannot say that moral progress exists. This tends to scare people, since, and I hate to pull a reductio ad hitlerum, only with objectivism can we say that Nazism is morally wrong.

This fits with oaths because morality is based outside of us, we swear to principles, or by Gods.

Now, as to stringency, there are two options: absolute and contingent. By absolute I mean there is a complete correlation between the promise and actions. Contingent allows for situational allowances to be allowed when certain stimuli are present. What I think oaths are getting at is absolute oath-taking, for we do not expect the President to lay aside his duties because of factor X, or violate his marriage in the oval office because a young lady was available.

So, the position I personally adopt is oath-based absolute objectivism.

I do what I say, I am reliable, and can be depended upon to get the job done.

To end this, I have to bring up the principle problem for this kind of objectivism, and it's all about this story called "Jim and the Indians."

Link!


So, the man's a pacifist, and is put in a position in which the best thing to do is contradict his devotion to pacifism.

So, the question is: Ought we abandon a position like mine because these kind of situations exist?

Been working on that, and I'll have what I hope to be a good answer next time!