
Oaths: How do they Work? (2019) - bryanrasmussen
https://acoup.blog/2019/06/28/collections-oaths-how-do-they-work/
======
hprotagonist
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.

~~~
stereolambda
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.

~~~
hprotagonist
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.

------
mplanchard
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...](https://acoup.blog/2019/05/10/collections-the-siege-of-gondor/)

------
motohagiography
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?

~~~
lonelappde
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.

~~~
throwaway5752
Not to mention being the foundation of the definition of perjury

------
lqet
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.

~~~
jmcqk6
This is your complaint from a blog titled "A Collection of Unmitigated
Pedantry"?

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

------
baud147258
There's a lot of good content on this blog, I'm happy to have found it via HN.

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

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

~~~
pfortuny
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.

------
amelius
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.

~~~
taneq
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?

~~~
pjc50
No, no, yes. I don't know why people think this morality stuff is so
complicated. /s

------
kace91
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.

~~~
Sharlin
Did you actually read the article?

------
codeulike
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.

See also Vows (which are different)

~~~
idoby
Edge cases in the API (can pass null etc) and throwing an exception on
programming errors are smells for me. I would model it this way:

oathContract = power.witnessOath(declaration, curse);

or in the case of a Christian power (which ISA Jewish power too): oathContract
= christianPower.witnessOath(declaration);

It's just not the same interface. You can't realistically ignore the type of
power and use a polymorphic call. The Bible says so.

(Of course, when you oathContract.renege(), we know which power should handle
your case, and can put a message in their respective queue)

~~~
codeulike
Haha

Deity = undocumented API

Theology = reverse engineering

Schism = new version breaks backward compatibility

