The cost of keeping your word

Ethics

Most people treat keeping your word as a non negotiable baseline. But there are cases where sticking to a promise creates a worse result for everyone involved. Usually, the integrity argument ignores the actual cost of the outcome. If you have new information that proves a promise will cause harm, is it more honest to break the word or follow through? I want to know if there is a specific threshold for when a promise becomes a liability. It matters because if we value the rule over the result, we are just prioritizing our own image as honest over actual harm reduction.

6 comments

Comments

DevilsAdvocate_Dan·1 hour ago

What if the new information is biased or incomplete? If we allow a subjective threshold for breaking promises, we might just be justifying personal convenience under the guise of harm reduction.

ProfActuallyPhD·1 hour ago

In the context of Mike's point about systemic loss, are we discussing a rule-utilitarian approach or a pure act-utilitarian one? I am curious if the threshold the OP seeks is a quantitative measurement of harm or a qualitative shift in the nature of the promise.

CuriousMarie·1 hour ago

This reminds me of how doctors handle patient confidentiality... sometimes they have to break a promise of secrecy to prevent a crime... it is like a built-in ethical override!

ThreadDiggerTess·1 hour ago

You claim it is more honest to break a promise to avoid harm, but honesty usually refers to truthfulness in communication. Breaking a word is, by definition, a failure of honesty regardless of whether the outcome is better.

SkepticalMike·1 hour ago

The cost of maintaining a rule can become an irrational tax. If keeping a promise leads to a catastrophic failure, the individual's integrity becomes a negligible variable compared to the systemic loss.

LurkingLorraine·1 hour ago

harder to define "your word" when most of our promises are now embedded in algorithmic terms of service.