Promising Against the Evidence #3 - Ethics | PHILOSOPHY 

It's important to note that a 50/50 chance doesn't necessarily apply to real individuals. The stats tell us that if we select a random married couple irrespective of factors outside the purview the statistics(demographics mostly) then you're as likely to select future divorce as not. It's possible, if unlikely, that literally zero real couples have exactly even odd of failure, since those factors outside the study are real and efficacious on real pairs. So a couple deciding to get married can in some ways predict likely outcomes as stated but there is always a degree of estimation. Aside from demographics there are real factors on individuals that can affect outcomes, such as upbringing, willpower, stability, valuing novelty and likely factors nobody has considered. Just thinking through the problem of stats and what they can actually tell you about yourself.

Interesting series, the main problem with this example of marriage I think is that it ignores an important factor: yes you can decide which behaviours you will do (be kind, empathetic, take out the garbage, don't physically cheat), but you can't ultimately decide whether you will still "love" that person in the future (with "love" here I mean a romantic, sexual and emotional feeling that is usually associated with a spouse, and not a universal feeling of love like compassion). This kind of "love" is irrational. So even if you are the agent, and you commit to something based on your current feelings, you won't know if these feelings will persist in the future. It's not just a matter of difficulty, which can be overcome with some hard work. I mean, will the other person really still want to be married to you if you don't cheat, you behave nicely etc, but don't have any feelings for him/her? I don't think so, at least in some countries, of course it's not like this everywhere.

I guess that promising against the evidence is just a show of good faith. You do this to express to other people involved in your promise that you're not going to *purposefully* attempt sabotage the situation.

These videoes have only emphasized to me that a promise is merely the intent to try, option 1. What I think is missing from the videos is the question: why do promises matter? Promises are not merely predictions of future actions, they are an agreement between 2 or more people. This distinction matters for some of the reasons illustrated here, if a car accident prevents you from fulfilling a promise no one can really hold that against you (assuming you weren't responsible). However if you just didn't want to get off the couch to fulfill your promise then that is squarely in your hands as the moral actor, you failed to implement the necessary effort. I don't agree with your arguments against promises as a declaration to try, as they seemed a bit straw man. People failing to follow through with a promise means they broke the promise and acted immoral (generally speaking, we can get into when it is morally permissible to break a promise). So to say that a person promising to be married for the rest of their life and then not following through is somehow an argument against a promise to try doesn't connect for me. Option 5 seems to clinically internalized and ignores that promises are primarily a communication tool. The evaluation of the degree to which breaking a promise is immoral is tied up in things like "what did you get up front for your promise" and/or "degree of harm caused by the break". The impact of breaking promises seems crucially lacking here. and the erosion of the value of your word over time as a result of repeatedly broken promises. Also there is an over reliance of percentage chance for none chance things in these videoes. I should not be basing my own promises probability off marriage statistics, if Im using those statistics in anyways it may be to look for what sorts of problems to try to address before they impact me. 50% of marriages fail is not the same as saying my marriage has a 50% chance of failure.

Just say you intend to do it:)

I think difficulty seems to reduce to probability so I don't see the distinction.

I am not convinced here ... If this is the type of argument used to justify marriage then several issues already arise : 1) this isn't the only reason some people are against marriage, or rather the problem is not tied to just the odds but the nature of marriage as an institution being a contract between the couple and the state (heavily bias on women's favor).This lead me to my next point 2)this video is basing this argument on the premise that hard work is enough to maintain a relationship and doesn't take under consideration that one of the agent not only most likely benefit from destroying it (Alimony, exclusive child custody etc) for various others reasons Wich include irrational vindictive quest or irrational not well tough out insastisfaction that could motivate divorce to swap partners. 3) last but not least, a good case can still be made even if the odds we're good for men not only due to the insane consequences a man can face if a divorce occur, and that the bias of the court system can be weaponized again men Wich definitely is against the premise that marriage is a fair deal and that both agents will guarantee it's preservation ( like I have shown in point 2) I am not saying this argument cannot be good for other stuff ,but I am highly suspicious of how reductionist such an argument is when discussing problems like marriage ...just saying

This guy didn't learn anything since the previous video on the subject. Again the title and introduction is about promising against the evidence, while most of his talk is about making a choice without certainty of it being right. Two completely separate issues. This video offers zero on the topic of promising against the evidence. I honestly think such a guy should be fired as a philosophy professor. Dears, please don't bring this man again, it is a waste of time to watch his 'teachings'.