Binding exceptionless commitments matter to understanding this complicated thing
I don’t think “exceptionless commitments” is a useful category: Any commitment is exceptionless within some domain. No commitment is exceptionless over all domains (likely it’s not even well-defined).
“exceptionless commitment” just seems like confusion/tautology to me: So this commitment applies everywhere it applies? Ok.
Saying that it applies “without exception (over some set)” is no simpler than saying it applies “over some set”. Either way, the set is almost certainly messy.
In practical terms, claiming a commitment is exceptionless usually means falling victim to an illusion of transparency: thinking that the domain is clear when it isn’t (usually even to yourself).
E.g. “I commit never to X”. Does this apply: When I’m sleep deprived? Dreaming? Sleep-walking? Hallucinating? Drunk? How drunk? On drugs? Which drugs? Voluntarily? In pain? How much? Coerced? To what extent? Role-playing? When activity in areas of my brain is suppressed by electric fields? Which areas? To what degree? During/after brain surgery? What kind? After brain injury/disease? What kinds? Under hypnosis? When I’ve forgotten the commitment, believe I never made it, or honestly don’t believe it applies? When my understanding of X changes? When possessed by a demon? When I believe I’m possessed by a demon? When replaced by a clone who didn’t make the commitment? When I believe I’m such a clone?… (most of these may impact both whether I X, and whether I believe I am violating my commitment not to X)
For almost all human undertakings X, there are clear violations of “I commit to X”, there are clear non-violations, and there’s a complex boundary somewhere between the two. Adding “without exception” does not communicate the boundary.
A nit-pick:
I don’t think “exceptionless commitments” is a useful category:
Any commitment is exceptionless within some domain.
No commitment is exceptionless over all domains (likely it’s not even well-defined).
“exceptionless commitment” just seems like confusion/tautology to me:
So this commitment applies everywhere it applies? Ok.
Saying that it applies “without exception (over some set)” is no simpler than saying it applies “over some set”. Either way, the set is almost certainly messy.
In practical terms, claiming a commitment is exceptionless usually means falling victim to an illusion of transparency: thinking that the domain is clear when it isn’t (usually even to yourself).
E.g. “I commit never to X”. Does this apply:
When I’m sleep deprived? Dreaming? Sleep-walking? Hallucinating? Drunk? How drunk? On drugs? Which drugs? Voluntarily? In pain? How much? Coerced? To what extent? Role-playing? When activity in areas of my brain is suppressed by electric fields? Which areas? To what degree? During/after brain surgery? What kind? After brain injury/disease? What kinds? Under hypnosis? When I’ve forgotten the commitment, believe I never made it, or honestly don’t believe it applies? When my understanding of X changes? When possessed by a demon? When I believe I’m possessed by a demon? When replaced by a clone who didn’t make the commitment? When I believe I’m such a clone?… (most of these may impact both whether I X, and whether I believe I am violating my commitment not to X)
For almost all human undertakings X, there are clear violations of “I commit to X”, there are clear non-violations, and there’s a complex boundary somewhere between the two. Adding “without exception” does not communicate the boundary.