Is it wrong to break an immoral promise?

Of course it would be morally wrong for him to break the promise.

Since you created this with the supposition that breaking a promise is morally wrong I don't see there is any room for anyone to answer otherwise.

A promise is basically a trust agreement between people. If the agreement is wrong, then it is not wrong to dismiss the agreement. Breaking some promises might be considered wrong by people because it would be a breach of trust; that's basically it. However, if a promise is made that is wrong in the first place, then you would have an obligation to not follow that promise. There is no breach of trust since the agreement is harmful to anyone else.

Only if one concludes that an immoral promise (i.e. a promise to do something immoral) has the same moral force as a moral promise (i.e. a promise to do something that is either moral or morally neutral).

Are you asking what we think by our morals, or what we would conclude from the moral position you first outlined? Your initial post clearly stated that breaking promises is morally wrong. Unless your definition of the word 'promises' excludes 'immoral promises', then it must be morally wrong for Albert to break his promise to Hubert.

Are we discussing the application of the initial moral rules you suggested, or their own value as moral rules?

Under either interpretation, we can have a world in which promise-breaking in general is morally wrong but breaking immoral promises is morally acceptable.

fishin' wrote:

Of course it would be morally wrong for him to break the promise.

Since you created this with the supposition that breaking a promise is morally wrong I don't see there is any room for anyone to answer otherwise.

Only if one concludes that an immoral promise (i.e. a promise to do something immoral) has the same moral force as a moral promise (i.e. a promise to do something that is either moral or morally neutral).

I don't see how it matters. You set the stipulation that breaking a promise is morally wrong - period. You didn't add caveats to it or set conditions where breaking a promise might not be immoral. Since you created the stipluation there is no room for one to draw their own conclusions without going outside of the stipulations.

fishin' wrote:

I don't see how it matters. You set the stipulation that breaking a promise is morally wrong - period. You didn't add caveats to it or set conditions where breaking a promise might not be immoral. Since you created the stipluation there is no room for one to draw their own conclusions without going outside of the stipulations.

You are taking this far too literally. Consider:

Let us assume that breaking contracts is legally wrong. Hubert Husband contracts with Albert Assassin to kill his wife. Hubert, per the terms of the contract, pays Albert $50,000 down, with another $50,000 to be paid upon completion of the contract. Albert, however, has a change of heart and decides not to perform his part of the deal. Hubert then sues Albert for breach of contract. What is the result?

If you know anything of contract law, you know that Hubert will lose. That's because contracts to perform illegal acts are prohibited under the law: such contracts are void ab initio, i.e. of no effect whatsoever. Yet we can still talk about the wrongfullness of breaking contracts in general, even if it is not wrong for Albert to break this contract in particular. In the same way, then, one can stipulate that breaking promises is morally wrong, but still hold that breaking this promise is morally acceptable.

And if you're still having trouble reconciling those two principles, let me ask this: if Albert was wrong to break his promise to murder someone, was his action morally condemnable? Or, if Albert has another change of heart and kills the wife, should we then praise him for keeping his promise?

Your example has two problems with it. First off, "legal" and "moral", while often complementing each other don't always.

Secondly, it is accepted legal principle that a contract isn't legally enforcable if the contract itself is for an illegal act so anyone with knowledge of the legal system knows that this exclusion exists. If you had created a similar "out" in your stipulations then I probably would have agreed as others did that him backing out of the promise wouldn't be morally wrong.

Being morally wrong doesn't necessarily mean a strong comdemnation (or any at all for that matter).

Perhaps I am taking things to literally but when one presents a scenario for philosophical discussion and sets conditions I see little point in jumping outside of the stipulations to play "what if" as if the stipulations didn't exist. If you put them there I assume they are there for a reason. Why would you create them if you didn't intend for them to apply?

Let us suppose that murder is morally wrong. Furthermore, let us suppose that breaking promises is also morally wrong. Now, suppose that Albert Assasin promises Hubert Husband that, in exchange for a large sum of money, he will kill Hubert's wife. As he is preparing to commit the deed, however, Albert has a change of heart, and decides that he will not go ahead with the murder.

Question: was it morally wrong for Albert to break his promise to Hubert?

fishin' wrote:

Secondly, it is accepted legal principle that a contract isn't legally enforcable if the contract itself is for an illegal act so anyone with knowledge of the legal system knows that this exclusion exists. If you had created a similar "out" in your stipulations then I probably would have agreed as others did that him backing out of the promise wouldn't be morally wrong.

It was not necessary for me to create an "out." It was your job to determine if such an "out" exists.

fishin' wrote:

Being morally wrong doesn't necessarily mean a strong comdemnation (or any at all for that matter).

Something cannot be both morally wrong and not blameworthy.

True, but only within the confines of the set stipulations.

Why did you bother to list the set of conditions if you expected people to just ignore them? Imagine this in our schools; "A train leaves New York City traveling at 50 mph headed on a 2000 mile trip. If the train maintains a constant 50mph speed, how long will it take for the train to reach it's destination?" Little Johnny jumps up and says "1 hour if they speed up to 2000 mph!". Little Johnny gets a gold star and an "A" in math on his report card. lol

Really? I'd think it can. For example, you bring home a pocket full of penny candies and put them in a kitchen drawer. Your 6 year old child sees you put them in there and you tell them that they aren't allowed to touch them. You leave the room and the candies are soon forgotten.

5 years later you walk into the kitchen and you child is popping one of the candies into their mouth. Do you lecture them about the committing an immoral (and quite possibly unhealthy!) act or chuckle at them for waiting for 5 years? How much blame is it worth at this point?

"Is it wrong to break an immoral promise?"

To make a promise that has immoral consequences is wrong.

'I will help you rob the bank'

To break this promise is also wrong. It is immoral to rob a bank, but it is also immoral to break a promise. So if you made the promise you are in the shyt. You just have to break the promise that has the least consequences to break, and pay the price. That would be the only way to regain moral balance. But you'd have to remember to pay for it, or it is not moral.

But if the promise was this:
'I promise that I will steal your wife'

It is an immoral promise, but is it immoral to break it? If so, to who is it immoral?

In the eyes of Albert Assassin he is unconcerned that he is intending to be morally wrong when he makes the promise in the first place since it is morally wrong to kill someone. Therefore I can't imagine him feeling immoral for breaking a promise either, since he has no qualms about either murder or breaking promises.

In my eyes since the promise was to do an immoral act, the breaking of that promise is not morally wrong.