First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
IS IT WRONG TO BREAK AN IMMORAL PROMISE?
2397 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / In Rainbows
Offline
Posted 6/24/12
suppose, murder is morally wrong. Furthermore, let us suppose that breaking a promise is also morally wrong.
Now, A hates B so he hired C to kill B (Let's assume that C's reward for killing B is money.)

Note: any kind of reward for C is also possible.

C PROMISED A to kill B, As C is preparing to commit the deed, C has a change of heart, and decides that he will not go ahead with the murder.

Was it morally wrong for C to break his promise to A?


26 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 6/24/12
Yes, for Christ sake!
8782 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Gotham City
Offline
Posted 6/24/12
Morally Wrong vs. Morally Right isn't a black or white issue, there are shades of grey in-between.

There are also levels and degrees to which something might fall under the Morally Wrong or Morally Right categories.

Breaking a promise might be seen as wrong, but killing someone is generally agreed upon by the majority of people to be a more heinous offense. So if a person had to break a promise in order to save a life, most people (but not everyone) will tend to think they did a morally "right" deed.
86462 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Colorado, USA
Offline
Posted 6/24/12
Seeing as morals were absent in the start, I don't see it as possible for later morals to contradict the initial absence of morals. Trust was betrayed, but moral priority would prioritize life over trust.
27268 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 6/25/12 , edited 6/25/12
Yes. If you considered something to be wrong but you promised it to do it, that is your choice. When you break a promise, you are committing a wrongdoing, as well. The effects of breaking the promise may be better than the effects of fulfilling a harmful one, but it's a wrongdoing nonetheless, albeit a less harmful one. Both are wrong. Choosing the better of the two only means you have chosen what is less wrong, not what is right.

It's sort of like having to choose between getting pricked on the hand with a sterile needle or getting run through with a poisoned spear. Most would choose the needle, but the best scenario would still be one in which you don't need to make this choice at all. If you're stuck with having to, though, you should choose what is less wrong or less harmful.

Don't carelessly make promises.
1078 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F / US
Offline
Posted 6/25/12
It is against my morals to not kill people.
Posted 6/25/12 , edited 6/25/12
Promises or not, it is another human beings life that is being taken. Screw being immoral for breaking such an immoral promise. I'd do the right thing and not take a precious life. Betrayal or not.
3088 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / California
Offline
Posted 6/25/12 , edited 6/25/12


Well, I don't think breaking a promise is that big of a deal in this case.

But, if B doesn't know that A is trying to kill him/her, and when C had a change of heart and decided not to kill B and that C told B that A hired him to kill B.

So the point here is that, if C told B and A hired him to kill B, then I think it is morally wrong.



I think what you are saying is correct and I do Agree with it, however to only some extent. Because I can only go so far as to forgive a person for what he or she had done to me. =P
Posted 6/25/12
yes
Banned
31569 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / The Void.
Offline
Posted 6/25/12
Oh, damn. Another confused thread from the man that will die soon.
11057 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Towson
Offline
Posted 6/25/12
It is wrong to make an immoral promise. Subsequently coming to your senses and not following through with committing the immoral, promised action -- wouldn't that be coming to your senses and doing right, choosing to avoid wrong?

It is always the right decision to choose to do good.

But it is wrong to make an immoral promise at all, because promises should be kept.
Posted 6/25/12
its wrong for him to commit murder, but also wrong to brake a promise, so hes wrong either way
30483 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Michigan Technolo...
Offline
Posted 6/25/12
Hmm… since generally people here have agreed that it is better (or at least less wrong) to break the promise than to kill, how about more murky ground? Say Person A is jobless, but has scored a very promising interview. However, Person A does not have a car, so Person B promises to drive Person A to the interview. Unfortunately, Person B's car breaks down on the way, and it isn't repairable in time. Person C, who just parked nearby, leaves his/her car to quickly do something, leaving the key in the ignition. Person B could steal Person C's car and get Person A to the interview on time, or Person B could abide the law, therefore breaking the promise, and Person A is unable to get the job.

Which course of action seems right/least wrong now?
7954 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Chicago
Offline
Posted 6/25/12
Who's stupid enough to make that promise then have second thoughts and worry about the morality of breaking it?
anyway murder is worse than breaking a promise so....


Atheistic wrote:

Yes, for Christ sake!


nice avi
Rajyrr 
35149 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Nova Scotia, Canada
Offline
Posted 6/25/12
Assuming morality were actually black and white, you'd be screwed. Fortunately, not killing someone is never a bad thing. Selling out "A" would also be something to consider, not just breaking one's promise to him.

After all, the blood's as good as on A's hands the moment he hires an assassin. I'm fairly certain hiring assassins is against the law.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.