[ExI] pussy riot case

[Ben Zaiboc]

Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Who take the oath freely must foresee all consequences
> and be responsible
> > for his choices.
> > But independently from his oath, Army Pfc. Bradley
> Manning knew the laws
> > and what he risked.
> >
> 
> I must say that I irrespective of any sympathy I may have
> for his position,
> I fully agree with that.
> 
> I can easily imagine a number of circumstances where I would
> gladly commit
> a crime, but this does not allow me to ignore the legal
> consequences.
> 
>  In other words, do you think that divorce, for example,
> should never
> > be allowed under any circumstances?  That there is
> never a moral
> > obligation to violate an oath under any circumstances,
> even if you
> > find that the oath would lead you to do evil things?
> >
> 
> An oath is an oath is an oath.
> 
> Assuming that we are are morally allowed to make
> unconditional oaths, we
> are morally obliged to respect them, and your guilt, if any,
> originates
> from the original oath, not from the compliance therewith -
> an entirely
> different thing is whether the law provides for sanctions
> and remedies in
> the event of a breach, or not (as in the case of a divorce
> by consent).
> 
> We feel like breaching our freely accepted obligations?
> Fine, but to take
> the moral high ground in doing so seems indeed
> self-indulgent.
> 
> Let us just say that you may have economic or political or
> personal motives
> to do so and accordingly you do not care.


This is not my point.  My point is that when the conditions under which an oath is sworn change, the oath can't be logically binding (although it may well still be legally binding).  If someone swears an oath in ignorance of a future state that affects it, they were not in full possession of the relevant facts.  If someone swears an oath to someone in the expectation that they won't commit evil acts, and require you to do the same, but then that expectation is violated, where does the oath stand?

"> Assuming that we are are morally allowed to make
> unconditional oaths, we
> are morally obliged to respect them"

The problem with this is that it's not possible to make an unconditional oath.  The only way this could possibly work would be if the oath actually made someone behave in a certain way against their will (like a magical geas). Oaths, like everything else, are always conditional.  This is a logical necessity.  As I said before, an oath is just a class of promise, or a contract.


Ben Zaiboc