My take on this is that it’s okay to make a pledge in good faith if you intend to fulfil it and will make an effort to do so even if this becomes inconvenient.
That doesn’t mean committing yourself come what may. If we thought we had to carry through on our promises no matter what, nobody would make promises, and the world would be a sorrier place for that. Similarly people getting married usually intend in good faith to stay with the marriage for the rest of their life, and to make an effort to make that work, but I think the process works better by allowing the prospect of divorce.
For reference, here’s what the GWWC FAQ has to say on this:
If someone decides that they can no longer keep the pledge (for instance due to serious unforeseen circumstances), then they can simply cease to be a member. They can of course rejoin later if they renew their commitment. Obviously taking the pledge is something to be considered seriously, but we understand if a member can no longer keep it.
If we thought we had to carry through on our promises no matter what, nobody would make promises
I don’t think that’s true. Historically many people have been willing to die for their oaths of fealty—despite knowledge of this possible outcome, they still took the oath, and frequently failed to run away even when they had the chance. In our less honour-bound contemporary society, this behaviour sounds alien and implausible, but it still happened. Given that GWWC is trying to impress the moral seriousness of the issue upon people, I think it is important to consider how previous groups have dealt with similar moral weights.
My take on this is that it’s okay to make a pledge in good faith if you intend to fulfil it and will make an effort to do so even if this becomes inconvenient.
That doesn’t mean committing yourself come what may. If we thought we had to carry through on our promises no matter what, nobody would make promises, and the world would be a sorrier place for that. Similarly people getting married usually intend in good faith to stay with the marriage for the rest of their life, and to make an effort to make that work, but I think the process works better by allowing the prospect of divorce.
For reference, here’s what the GWWC FAQ has to say on this:
I don’t think that’s true. Historically many people have been willing to die for their oaths of fealty—despite knowledge of this possible outcome, they still took the oath, and frequently failed to run away even when they had the chance. In our less honour-bound contemporary society, this behaviour sounds alien and implausible, but it still happened. Given that GWWC is trying to impress the moral seriousness of the issue upon people, I think it is important to consider how previous groups have dealt with similar moral weights.