I think that’s reasonable. Here’s one example to illustrate what might be making my intuitions differ a bit; I feel like you could say “He has spent his life working to end malaria” when someone is alive and fairly young, and also that you could say “He spent his life working to end malaria” even if really he worked on that from 30-60 and then retired. (Whereas I don’t think this is true if you explicitly say “He worked to end malaria till the day he died”.) In a similar way, I have a weak sense we can “enter into a union for life” without this literally extending for 100% of the rest of our lives.
But maybe my intuition is being driven more by it being a present-tense matter of us currently voluntarily entering into this union. Analogously, I think people would usually feel it’s reasonable for promises to not always be upheld if unusual and hard-to-foresee circumstances arose, the foreseeing of which would’ve made the promise-maker decide not to make the promise to begin with. (But this does get complicated if reference class forecasting suggests an e.g. 50% chance of some relevant circumstance arising, and it’s just that any particular circumstance arising is hard to foresee, as it was in many of those 50% of cases.)
In any case, I guess I really think that whether and how partners explicitly discussed their respective understandings of their arrangement, in advance, probably matters more than the precise words the celebrant said.
Again, a reasonable question. I don’t think we disagree substantially.
Also, again, I think my views are actually less driven by a perceived distinction between “for life” vs “till death do us part”, and more driven by:
the idea that it seems ok to make promises even if there’s some chance that unforeseen circumstances will make fulfilling them impossible/unwise—as long as the promise really was “taken seriously”, and ideally the promise-receiver has the same understanding of how “binding” the promise is
having had many explicit conversations on these matters with my partner
Finally, I’d also guess that I’m far from alone in simultaneously (a) being aware that a large portion of marriages end in divorce, (b) being aware that many of those divorces probably began with the couple feeling very confident their marriage wouldn’t end in divorce, and (c) having a wedding in which a phrase like “for life” or “till death do us part” was used.
And I think it would be odd to see all such people as having behaving poorly by making a promise they may well not keep and know in advance they may not keep, at least if the partners had discussed their shared understanding of what they were promising. (I’m not necessarily saying you’re saying we should see those people that way.) One reason for this view is that people extremely often meansomething other than exact the literal meaning of what they’ve said, and this seems ok in most contexts, as long as people mutually understand what’s actually meant.
(I think a reasonable argument can be made that marriages aren’t among those “most contexts”, given their unusually serious and legal nature. But it also seems worth noting that this is about what the celebrant said, not our vows or what we signed.)
Direct response, which is sort-of getting in the weeds on something I haven’t really thought about in detail before, to be honest
What do you think the “for life” adds to the pledge if not “for the rest of your lives”?
One could likewise ask what “He spent his life working to end malaria” means that’s different from “He spent some time working to end malaria”. There, I’d say it adds the idea that this was a very major focus for perhaps at least 2 decades, probably more than 3 decades. Whereas “some time” could mean it wasn’t a major priority for him at any point, or only for e.g. 10 years.
It seems to me perhaps reasonable to think of “entered into for life” as meaning “entered into as at one of the core parts of one’s life for at least a few decades, and perhaps/ideally till the very end of one’s life”. Whereas “till death do us part” is very explicitly until the very end of one’s life.
Out of curiosity, I’ve now looked up what dictionaries say “for life” means. The first two results I found said “for the whole of one’s life : for the rest of one’s life” (source) and “for the rest of a person’s life” (source). This pushes against my (tentative) view, and in favour of your view.
However, I’d tentatively argue that 2 of the 5 of the examples those dictionaries give actually seem to me to at least arguably fit my (tentative) view:
“She may have been scarred for life.”
Obviously, people can say this as an exaggeration. But I think they can also say it in a more serious way, that people wouldn’t perceive as an exaggeration, even if they actually just mean something like “scarred in a substantial way that resurfaces semi-regularly for at least 2 decades”. (That’s still a lot more than just “scarred” or “scarred for a while”.)
“There can be no jobs for life.”
Another dictionary tells me “job for life” means (as I’d expect) “a job that you can stay in all your working life”; not till the actual end of your life.
Two of the other examples are about being sentenced to prison for life; I think that also arguably fits my view, given how life sentences actually tend to work (as far as I’m aware). The fifth example—“They met in college and have remained friends for life” -could go either way.
(And again, I think it’s common for people to not actually mean the dictionary definitions of what they say, and that this can be ok, as long as they understand each other.)
“for life” sounds just as permanent to me, if less morbid, than “till death do us part”
I think that’s reasonable. Here’s one example to illustrate what might be making my intuitions differ a bit; I feel like you could say “He has spent his life working to end malaria” when someone is alive and fairly young, and also that you could say “He spent his life working to end malaria” even if really he worked on that from 30-60 and then retired. (Whereas I don’t think this is true if you explicitly say “He worked to end malaria till the day he died”.) In a similar way, I have a weak sense we can “enter into a union for life” without this literally extending for 100% of the rest of our lives.
But maybe my intuition is being driven more by it being a present-tense matter of us currently voluntarily entering into this union. Analogously, I think people would usually feel it’s reasonable for promises to not always be upheld if unusual and hard-to-foresee circumstances arose, the foreseeing of which would’ve made the promise-maker decide not to make the promise to begin with. (But this does get complicated if reference class forecasting suggests an e.g. 50% chance of some relevant circumstance arising, and it’s just that any particular circumstance arising is hard to foresee, as it was in many of those 50% of cases.)
In any case, I guess I really think that whether and how partners explicitly discussed their respective understandings of their arrangement, in advance, probably matters more than the precise words the celebrant said.
What do you think the “for life” adds to the pledge if not “for the rest of your lives”?
Backing up to clarify where I’m coming from
Again, a reasonable question. I don’t think we disagree substantially.
Also, again, I think my views are actually less driven by a perceived distinction between “for life” vs “till death do us part”, and more driven by:
the idea that it seems ok to make promises even if there’s some chance that unforeseen circumstances will make fulfilling them impossible/unwise—as long as the promise really was “taken seriously”, and ideally the promise-receiver has the same understanding of how “binding” the promise is
having had many explicit conversations on these matters with my partner
Finally, I’d also guess that I’m far from alone in simultaneously (a) being aware that a large portion of marriages end in divorce, (b) being aware that many of those divorces probably began with the couple feeling very confident their marriage wouldn’t end in divorce, and (c) having a wedding in which a phrase like “for life” or “till death do us part” was used.
And I think it would be odd to see all such people as having behaving poorly by making a promise they may well not keep and know in advance they may not keep, at least if the partners had discussed their shared understanding of what they were promising. (I’m not necessarily saying you’re saying we should see those people that way.) One reason for this view is that people extremely often mean something other than exact the literal meaning of what they’ve said, and this seems ok in most contexts, as long as people mutually understand what’s actually meant.
(I think a reasonable argument can be made that marriages aren’t among those “most contexts”, given their unusually serious and legal nature. But it also seems worth noting that this is about what the celebrant said, not our vows or what we signed.)
Direct response, which is sort-of getting in the weeds on something I haven’t really thought about in detail before, to be honest
One could likewise ask what “He spent his life working to end malaria” means that’s different from “He spent some time working to end malaria”. There, I’d say it adds the idea that this was a very major focus for perhaps at least 2 decades, probably more than 3 decades. Whereas “some time” could mean it wasn’t a major priority for him at any point, or only for e.g. 10 years.
It seems to me perhaps reasonable to think of “entered into for life” as meaning “entered into as at one of the core parts of one’s life for at least a few decades, and perhaps/ideally till the very end of one’s life”. Whereas “till death do us part” is very explicitly until the very end of one’s life.
Out of curiosity, I’ve now looked up what dictionaries say “for life” means. The first two results I found said “for the whole of one’s life : for the rest of one’s life” (source) and “for the rest of a person’s life” (source). This pushes against my (tentative) view, and in favour of your view.
However, I’d tentatively argue that 2 of the 5 of the examples those dictionaries give actually seem to me to at least arguably fit my (tentative) view:
“She may have been scarred for life.”
Obviously, people can say this as an exaggeration. But I think they can also say it in a more serious way, that people wouldn’t perceive as an exaggeration, even if they actually just mean something like “scarred in a substantial way that resurfaces semi-regularly for at least 2 decades”. (That’s still a lot more than just “scarred” or “scarred for a while”.)
“There can be no jobs for life.”
Another dictionary tells me “job for life” means (as I’d expect) “a job that you can stay in all your working life”; not till the actual end of your life.
Two of the other examples are about being sentenced to prison for life; I think that also arguably fits my view, given how life sentences actually tend to work (as far as I’m aware). The fifth example—“They met in college and have remained friends for life” -could go either way.
(And again, I think it’s common for people to not actually mean the dictionary definitions of what they say, and that this can be ok, as long as they understand each other.)