When should you break a promise? - Sarah Stroud and Michael Vazquez
Learning Stats
CEFR 레벨
Total Words
Unique Words
Difficulty
자막 (80 segments)
DownloadFor decades, Yvonne and Zaina have been happily married
and co-leading a non-profit developing a cure for a life-threatening disease.
This work is largely funded by profits from a successful company Yvonne founded.
But one day the couple is involved in a tragic car accident,
and Yvonne is rushed to the hospital.
The doctors can only do so much, and on her deathbed,
Yvonne asks Zaina to promise her two things.
First, she wants Zaina to continue using the company’s funds
to support their non-profit and its research.
Second, Yvonne recalls a conversation from years earlier
where the two pledged that no matter what the future held,
they would never remarry.
And in her final moments, Yvonne asks Zaina to recommit that pledge.
Holding her wife closely, Zaina promises to uphold Yvonne’s wishes.
In the following decade, Zaina keeps these promises.
But now several large pharmaceutical companies are likely to cure
this disease at any moment.
Additionally, after years of mourning,
Zaina has finally entered a new relationship.
She's happy with her partner,
and while she's not sure if she's even ready to remarry,
she feels the weight of her promise.
Given these new circumstances, should Zaina continue keeping these promises?
Philosophy has a lot to say about the value of keeping promises.
For example, philosopher Tim Scanlon argues that promising
is essentially about creating interpersonal expectations.
Making a promise assures another person that we’ll act in a certain way
which they can incorporate into their plans.
But since Yvonne can no longer make plans,
it seems like Zaina’s decision only affects herself, right?
Maybe not.
Philosophers like John Rawls and David Hume argue that keeping promises
isn’t as much about protecting the individuals involved
as preserving the societal value of promising itself.
Hume sees promises as tools for signaling trustworthiness,
so breaking them makes the practice less reliable overall.
Similarly, Rawls thinks keeping promises is a matter of fairness.
If you've benefited from this social practice,
then justice requires you to uphold your end of the bargain.
But do these social concerns apply to promises we’ve made to the dead?
And even if they do,
shouldn’t Zaina’s decision on this personal matter focus more on Yvonne
than on what Zaina might abstractly owe society?
These questions don't have clear answers,
and they might not even be relevant to this case.
Most philosophers agree that promises obtained through coercion or deceit
aren’t binding.
And one could argue that Zaina’s promises were made under duress.
Who could say “no” to their dying spouse?
On the other hand, Yvonne’s deathbed wishes
were neither threatening nor particularly unreasonable given their history.
If we assume both promises are legitimate,
we might think about Zaina’s dilemma through the lens of self-determination.
English philosopher John Locke believes people have a natural right
to self-ownership that limits how much other people can determine what we do.
And his followers might say that making a promise
doesn’t overrule this natural right,
especially about something as central to Zaina’s self-determination
as the choice to remarry.
Then again, what about Yvonne's rights?
Did they all disappear when she died,
or does Yvonne still have authority over her legacy, her relationship,
or especially her money?
Many countries have legal codes protecting the assets of the dead,
and money is a powerful tool for pursuing self-determination.
So at a minimum, perhaps Zaina should respect Yvonne’s right
to determine how her money will be spent.
At the same time, Zaina feels strongly that Yvonne would want those funds
to go to where the need is greatest,
like research into other less understood diseases.
And since the facts have changed,
maybe Zaina is justified in updating Yvonne’s wishes.
But perhaps all this talk of ownership, authority, and self-determination
is too impersonal.
Feminist philosopher Natalie Stoljar and Catriona Mackenzie
argue that we construct our identities in part through societal relationships,
meaning that Zaina’s identity and values are entangled with her marriage to Yvonne.
So perhaps honoring that marriage and the promises made within it
could be a way for Zaina to affirm her own identity.
So, given all these considerations, what would you do in Zaina’s position?
Key Vocabulary (50)
toward
"Go to school."
belonging
"Cup of tea."
also
"You and me."
inside
"In the house."
specific
"That book."
Used to show who is intended to have or use something, or to explain the purpose or reason for an action. It is also frequently used to indicate a specific duration of time.
A function word used to express negation or denial. It is primarily used to make a sentence or phrase negative, often following an auxiliary verb or the verb 'to be'.
A preposition used to indicate that something is in a position above and supported by a surface. It is also used to indicate a specific day or date, or to show that a device is functioning.
A conjunction used to compare two things that are equal in some way. It is most commonly used in the pattern 'as + adjective/adverb + as' to show similarity.
A preposition used to indicate a specific point, location, or position in space. It is also used to specify a particular point in time or a certain state or activity.
Used to identify a specific person, thing, or idea that is physically close to the speaker or has just been mentioned. It can also refer to the present time or a situation that is currently happening.
A coordinating conjunction used to connect two statements that contrast with each other. It is used to introduce an added statement that is different from what has already been mentioned.
Used to indicate the starting point, source, or origin of something. It can describe a physical location, a point in time, or the person who sent or gave an item.
A third-person plural pronoun used to refer to two or more people, animals, or things previously mentioned. It is also commonly used as a singular pronoun to refer to a person whose gender is unknown or to someone who identifies as non-binary.
The word 'we' is a first-person plural pronoun used to refer to the speaker and one or more other people collectively. It is used as the subject of a sentence or clause.
Description
Puzzle through an ethical dilemma and decide: what responsibility do we have to honor the wishes of the dead? -- For decades, Yvonne and Zaina have been happily married and co-leading a non-profi...
카테고리
관련 영상
TED-Ed
