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.)
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.)