Just make your promise carry an escape clauseā¦ This is a more honest thing to do than promising to never leave.
I think āhonestā here contrasts with romantic rather than dishonest. Maybe you think all commitments should be undertaken in a very clear-headed way, with an eye to possible failure points (and plans for how to respond if those contingencies eventuate). And thatās certainly a fine approach for some people. But Iād guess many if not most people would disagree about that, and instead value a sort of romantic thinking in some contexts that isnāt 100% epistemically rational, but may serve important purposes (including signaling commitment) nonetheless.
My default view is that such romantic thinking (and any associated āvague commitmentā) isnāt inherently wrong or ādamagingā. If my friends get divorced, that doesnāt necessarily undermine my belief in their honesty at all. (Absent special reason to believe in nefarious behaviour, Iām happy to trust that they have good reasons.)
Why not take a similar view of the GWWC pledge? I think the vagueness is maybe a good thing, for allowing flexibility for people of (presumed) good will to determine for themselves if their circumstances have changed sufficiently that they really need to rethink this, without potentially undermining the commitment by making its contingency explicit up-front.
My implicit assumption is that explicit escape clauses make escape more likely. If left implicit, exit remains possible if truly needed, but in a range of borderline situations where one would be tempted to take a pre-approved exit, the lack of pre-approval may (rightly!) deter one from exiting too easily.
I think āhonestā here contrasts with romantic rather than dishonest. Maybe you think all commitments should be undertaken in a very clear-headed way, with an eye to possible failure points (and plans for how to respond if those contingencies eventuate). And thatās certainly a fine approach for some people. But Iād guess many if not most people would disagree about that, and instead value a sort of romantic thinking in some contexts that isnāt 100% epistemically rational, but may serve important purposes (including signaling commitment) nonetheless.
My default view is that such romantic thinking (and any associated āvague commitmentā) isnāt inherently wrong or ādamagingā. If my friends get divorced, that doesnāt necessarily undermine my belief in their honesty at all. (Absent special reason to believe in nefarious behaviour, Iām happy to trust that they have good reasons.)
Why not take a similar view of the GWWC pledge? I think the vagueness is maybe a good thing, for allowing flexibility for people of (presumed) good will to determine for themselves if their circumstances have changed sufficiently that they really need to rethink this, without potentially undermining the commitment by making its contingency explicit up-front.
My implicit assumption is that explicit escape clauses make escape more likely. If left implicit, exit remains possible if truly needed, but in a range of borderline situations where one would be tempted to take a pre-approved exit, the lack of pre-approval may (rightly!) deter one from exiting too easily.