Taught to children at an early age, if not just seemingly innately known, is the idea that promises both big and small ought to be kept. Pinky promises in elementary school turn into signed contracts in adulthood, both promises simply in different forms. When choosing our friends and who we decide to surround ourselves with, their ability to keep promises, their trustworthiness, is often taken into consideration. We make promises and keep them to solidify the trustworthiness attributed to us making us seem more desirable and wanted as an individual. It also shows how much we care for the other parties involved in the promise, and to break said promise may imply that there is no care for the other or that we do not view them as important enough to maintain our word. If keeping our promises makes us more trustworthy, then breaking our promises only makes us seem more and more unreliable. Some promises may seem to be worth more than others, therefore the consequence of breaking a promise may be worse depending on the promise itself. Going back on your word hardly sounds like the right thing to do, but is there ever a time where breaking a promise is the right thing to do?
I like to think of myself as a good friend, and as the years have gone by my closest friends have assured me that I am, both by direct statement and by their interactions. One of these interactions would be the various times I have been turned to as a trusted confidant in various situations whether it be relationship troubles, family struggles, so on and so forth. As a result of this, I also hear a number of personal secrets. It should go unspoken that when trusted with a secret that it should not be shared with someone else under any circumstances, but sometimes this causes other moral conflicts to arise. My best friend in high school struggled with depression and self-harm, and as her best friend, and someone else who struggled with depression, I was always there for her to talk to no matter what. With the heavy content of the subject matter and the fear of her parents finding certain things out, I always promised her that I would not share anything she told me with anyone else if she did not want me to. However, as a good friend, I worried about her health and well-being. I promised that I would not tell anyone about her depression and self-harm, but should I break my promise to get her help? In a broader sense is my promise to a loved one a greater moral obligation than that of preventing them from harming themselves?
When looking at normative ethical theories there are two categories, which creates a clear division between the ideological views of those in each group. The first group holds a consequentialist view in which all possible outcomes are considered when faced with a decision. The second group holds a non-consequentialist or deontological, view which is based on the adherence to rules or duties rather than potential consequences. William D. Ross presents a deontological ethical system based on a set of fundamental principles he terms as prima facie duties. These principles are not just apparent duties one may have at first glance looking at a situation, but very real moral duties that are dependent on the individual circumstance. Ross’s seven prima facie duties are as follows: fidelity, reparation, gratitude, non-maleficence, beneficence, self-improvement, and justice. The base of this theory is based on Moore’s ideal utilitarianism i.e. an act is right if and only if it produces more good than additional acts. Additionally, Ross accepts that certain duties take precedence over others and that various duties are likely to conflict in any given circumstance. He theorizes that in such a case that one duty above others will take priority and then be the right thing to do in that given situation.
Applying Ross’s theory to my own dilemma, I find that the prima facie duties of fidelity, non-maleficence, and beneficence are the three duties that are most prevalent in my predicament. I promised my friend that I would not tell anyone about her mental health/self-harm; fidelity would have me maintain this promise. However, I also have a duty to prevent harm to others; which by not sharing my friend’s situation in order to get her help, I would not be helping her, therefore, I would be harming her. Finally, I also have a duty of beneficence, to be kind to others and help improve their health, well-being, happiness, etc. The conflict is then between the prima facie duties of fidelity and non-maleficence/beneficence. Personally, I believe my duties of non-maleficence and beneficence outweigh my duty of fidelity, as physical well-being must be fulfilled to achieve mental well-being, i.e. the root of the problem. Following this belief is supported by Ross as those prima facie duties define themselves as the more stringent. Thus, these are my actual duties in this situation at this point in time, rather than that of maintaining fidelity. I am looking out for her long-term happiness, supporting the utilitarian side of Ross’s theory.
While Ross’s theory supports my decision to break this specific promise, objections may be drawn to argue against my decision as well. Firstly, Ross never provides any actual instructions as to how to choose what to do. All his theory does is instigate an evaluation of the situation leaving the ultimate decision of what to do up to the individual. Just winging it based on what feels right may lead to a variety of different conclusions. This is the issue that arises as Ross’s moral theory does not solve the issue that conflicting principles creates. Not only that but is it possible to accurately compare fidelity to non-maleficence/beneficence to determine which duty is more stringent? There is no fair method to accurately judge the weight of each principle as it would be like trying to compare apples to oranges. He bases his theory on the idea of intuition, that what is known is not necessarily learned from experience. Ross assumes that his principles are simply common sense. My decision to go against my promise may seem common sense to me, but what if it goes against the common knowledge of someone else? Is my decision then wrong? Following Ross, I can only confirm that I do not necessarily know what the right answer is, which does not solve my predicament.
One of Ross’s greatest influencers, Immanuel Kant, would very strongly object to my decision to break my promise I had made my friend. In his works, Kant makes it brutally clear that he will not stand for lying in any instance. He believes that lying is morally wrong in every capacity regardless of whether or not lying would produce more happiness than an alternative action. Central to Kant’s theory is the idea of an overarching supreme principle of morality which he refers to as the categorical imperative. What this means is that categorical imperatives are moral commands that should be followed unconditionally. His first formulation of the categorical imperative is to act only on those principles that you can will to be a universal law of nature. Applying this to my specific situation, could I imagine and will a world where everyone breaks their promises? I can absolutely imagine this, but would I be willing to make it a universal law, no. Were this the case, no one could ever trust anyone and each individual would only care for themselves. Which explains why Kant disapproves of lying, including lying to my friend that I will not tell anyone the information she has shared with me even if it is with the intent to help her.
Ultimately, based on the theories set forth by Ross and Kant, I should not lie. However, due to the circumstances of the situation and the information involved, I should lie in this specific instance. Ross’s theory offers a more satisfying answer as to how to handle my dilemma as he understands that moral duties have the ability to conflict with one another. Not only that, but Ross is more easily applied to real life situations rather than the strictness of Kant’s moral theory where certain principles and morals, such as not lying, are seemingly set in stone. Based on this evidence I should be swayed to maintain my promise and not tell anyone about her self-harm because breaking that promise would go against deontological values. However, I know this is not the right choice. It would ultimately be the right thing, and more beneficial, to break my promise. Ross supports me in this, with his belief of knowing one’s actual duty arising in the given situation. I know that keeping promises is important, but not as important as preventing bodily harm whether it be to my own person or to others.