Oaths: How do they Work? (2019) | Hacker News Reader

Oaths: How do they Work? (2019)

acoup.blog

One of my favorite early american history facts is that there were a sufficient number of Quakers among the founders that the US legal system does not actually require oaths to be taken to testify in court or hold office.

You always have the option of making “a solemn affirmation” instead, because Friends don’t swear oaths.

Yes, and more traditional culture heavily discourages oaths and swearing in trivial matters, not to water them down (and no to bother the deity). I think also the Third Commandment is interpreted in this way.

On the other hand, Middle Ages knew original oaths such as swearing on the roasted pheasant on the table.

the quaker explanation is kind of wonderful, as i understand it. The main idea is that by making some speech Extra Special Truthful, I am corroding the trustworthiness of all of the rest of my speech. This is straight from the sermon on the mount, but you could appeal to the third commandment too. Willfully lying for your gain at the expense of others is one of the more corrosive things we can do to our community, so keeping it foremost in our minds as a thing to avoid seems like a real good idea to reinforce.

The other problem has an example from Tolkien: we are finite beings of imperfect knowledge, and if you swear an unbreakable oath, you stand a good chance of winding up like Fëanor and being forced to be a kinslayer against your own intention. Don't assume that much power, it's gonna bite you. This matters less in my neck of the woods than it used to, but there are certainly places still where blood feuds exist and nobody seems to know how to escape their trap.

I love this blog! The various posts on battle tactics in fantasy series are some of my absolute favorites. The six part series on the Siege of Gondor[1] was the first thing I read from there, and I’ve been subscribed ever since

1: https://acoup.blog/2019/05/10/collections-the-siege-of-gondo...

Bit long, but arguably an oath creates and represents value.

Simply, it separates you from the in-group vs. out-group, and confers identity, conditional upon its integrity. We don't really have them in modern society outside of fraternities, a few gated professions, security clearances, and whatever policing is. Oddly, oaths of public office barely count as nobody expects office holders to live up to them when the heat is on, and they do not confer membership.

Then again, given who still takes them, we could say that modern society runs on a foundation of oaths, but what's changed is prosecution and investigation techniques are such that there isn't much of an enforcement mechanism for breaking them. If unenforceable oaths underwrite our institutions, what does it mean for them?

What do you mean unenforceable?

Impeachment is how an oath is enforcement.

An oath isn't meant to reassure the listener of the oather's intent, it's to make sure the oather is aware of what this expected of them and the consequences of violating it.

Not to mention being the foundation of the definition of perjury

Interesting, but very frustrating to read:

> Oaths! How do they Work?

A paragraph later:

> “wait, how do oaths work?” and “how are they getting it wrong?” Today, we’re going to lay that out.

Then, after 6 paragraphs:

> So what is an Oath?

Then, after 14 paragraphs and around 3 full pages of text:

> Which brings us to the question how does an oath work?

Then, 3 paragraphs later:

> So what is an oath?

And then finally a definition. TLDR:

1) Oath contains declaration, which may be either something about the present or past or a promise for the future.

2) Powers greater than oneself are witnesses and will enforce the penalty if the oath is false.

3) A curse, by the swearers, called down on themselves, should they be false.

Which is kind of an anti-climax, because this is exactly how I thought everyone understands oaths.

This is your complaint from a blog titled "A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry"?

Seems like you're describing exactly what they claim to deliver.

Maybe it's coming from the author being a teacher, he's used to repeat things multiple times. Personally it didn't bother me.

There's a lot of good content on this blog, I'm happy to have found it via HN.

LOTR had proper oaths. Remember how Gollum swore "by the precious"?

Edit: augh, commented before finishing the article, it gives this exact example.

It is simple culture. An oath is the calling of a witness whose authority is undisputed (thus God, the Precious for Gollum...).

Absent the witness there is no oath.

Speaking of oaths, I think that as technology progresses we will need an oath for engineers and scientists so they will not use technology for evil. It will be even more important than e.g. Hippocrates' oath, thus if the latter exists then so should the former.

Evil is relative. I would take no such oath. Ever.

http://braungardt.trialectics.com/theology-index/christianit...

If you can not argue from your own moral principles why your acts are good, or why another act is evil, you need to work on building your moral compass.

If you are doing things that are not good according to your own moral principle you also need to work on building your moral compass. So I'm unsure why this is relevant.

Well, exactly, and you should hopefully not be doing that, so, what's the problem with taking an oath?

But why is an oath needed or useful? Someone who has a good moral compass doesn't need it, someone who hasn't isn't particularly likely to feel bound by it.

It is better to make these things explicit rather than implicit. Saying something out loud, formally, helps make things more tangible.

That's a useless bar. Most of the vilest people in history thought their own acts 'good'.

There's a difference between thinking you are good, and being able to argue the case.

Yes. And the difference is a small minimum amount of intelligence. Anyone can argue anything. See eg lawyers for the classic example.

> Evil is relative.

Sincere question: Can you explain what you mean by that?

Not the parent poster but how about meat consumption? A number of people think eating meat is evil and it's undeniable that animals are harmed in the process of producing meat for food. Is eating meat an absolute evil (people should universally agree that it's evil) or a relative one (it's permitted for people hold differing opinions on whether it is evil)?

Thanks. It seems like small details of phrasing have a lot of significance on this topic.

For example:

> Is eating meat an absolute evil (people should universally agree that it's evil) or a relative one (it's permitted for people hold differing opinions on whether it is evil)?

That seems to suggest a two-tier system of ethics. At one level, and act is considered conditionally evil depending on the viewpoint of the person committing the act.

But implicitly there seems to be another level at play: the universal applicability of good/evil being relative to each individual's belief system.

Gah... I really regret not taking some philosophy courses in college. I'm sure this issue has been covered ad nauseum for at least 3000 years.

> "Gah... I really regret not taking some philosophy courses in college. I'm sure this issue has been covered ad nauseum for at least 3000 years."

It's 2020; there's a website for everything. Try going to https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_ethics.html and scroll a couple of paragraphs down to the "An alternative division of meta-ethical views is between:" and dive into the links there.

Simply that each of us define evil differently. What is evil to one may not be evil to another. I'm not talking about extremes like murder, but for example capitalism or communism. Or writing code for the department of defense.

Sure. So would that oath forbid you from running a website for an abortion clinic? How about accepting blood transfusions? Or building a capital punishment device?

I didn't say it was easy. But the IEEE code of ethics might be a starting point for inspiration:

https://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html

No, no, yes. I don't know why people think this morality stuff is so complicated. /s

That is a question for the engineer's own conscience , there's a reason the profession is self-regulated. The only decision that's not acceptable is to ignore ethical dimensions entirely.

Well, that and bringing the profession into public disrepute, because we're still trying to turn a profit here, dagnabbit!

In Canada, engineering (not science) graduates "suscribe to the Obligation" before receiving the iron ring. The text is here:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ritual_of_the_Callin...

there’s an american version, as well. I, too, have made this solemn affirmation — my ring is unfaceted 501 stainless though.

Rings have been SS in canada for a couple decades, too. Still faceted, though.

One in a while you meet a really old school engineer with a dull iron (or carbon steel?) ring and the facets have been worn smooth.

and then, i should think, you listen when that engineer speaks.

Which undisputed authority could engineers invoke?

Logic?

I doubt they'd use the inhabitant of the empty set, and if there is no such inhabitant then the biggest thing left is logic.

Oath could be: "I swear on my reasoning that I will take $OATHSUBJECT as an axiom in all my decision making and that I am willing to be stripped of all trust and influence if I ever go against sound logic based on $OATHSUBJECT."

There is a well-known piece of software (JSLint) whose license says that it shall not be used for evil.

The author wound up having to give an exemption to IBM or its minions. See https://web.archive.org/web/20170722132351/https://dev.hasen....

Before you laugh too hard, remember that IBM's tabulating machines were used by the Nazis for the holocaust. And IBM's customers include a variety of dictators who are trying to keep tabs on their population. As an institution they have extremely good reason to believe that their work will be used for evil.

You are free to swear such an oath right now. No one is keeping you.

I find the article kinda weird - that it needs explanation, I mean. Aren't oaths as described in the article common in the us?

Here in Spain you'll usually hear things like "I swear by my mom" (with the implication, sometimes said explicitely, that she'll die if you're lying). It's mostly a kids thing but many adults use it as a figure of speech to emphasize they're serious.

Did you actually read the article?

Those aren't oaths as described in the article, very obviously.

TLDR, converted for HN:

public Binding swearOath(declaration string, witness Deity<Religion>, curse string)

Parameters:

declaration: A declaration, which may be either something about the present or past or a promise for the future.

witness: The specific powers greater than oneself who are invoked as witnesses and who will enforce the penalty if the oath is false. In Christian oaths, this is typically God, although it can also include saints. For the Greeks, Zeus Horkios (Zeus the Oath-Keeper) is the most common witness for oaths. This is almost never omitted, even when it is obvious.

curse: A curse, by the swearers, called down on themselves, should they be false. This third part is often omitted or left implied, where the cultural context makes it clear what the curse ought to be. Particularly, in Christian contexts, the curse is theologically obvious (damnation, delivered at judgment) and so is often omitted.

(i.e. can pass null for curse if witness = God<Christianity>)

An InvalidOath exception is thrown if any parameters missing.

Return value: Binding (object): binding will be registered as an observer on current, past or future action, calling method with name 'curse' if original declaration not valid or not fulfilled.