What an Oath Adds, and What It Costs
An oath adds nothing to a person's honesty that the ordinary penalties for lying do not already supply; what it does add is a standing temptation to perjury. Measured by its effects, the compulsory oath fails twice over.
Bentham puts the oath to the utilitarian test and finds it needless and worse. Whatever keeps a person honest, the penalties the law attaches to lying already do; the oath supplies no motive on top of that. What it does supply is harm: an institution that demands solemn assent to articles nobody fully believes teaches the young that a sworn promise is a form to get through, not words to be meant. So the oath does not raise honesty, it manufactures a habit of hollow swearing. The argument is of a piece with his whole method, judging an institution not by its dignity but by what it actually produces.
- utility
- law
- legislation
- oaths
- perjury
Enter a dialogue
- In court, lying is punished as perjury only if the liar was sworn. Why did you call that gap a licence to lie granted by the judges?
- Isn't there something an oath does that a mere penalty cannot, calling a person before their own conscience rather than a court?
- Quakers refuse every oath on religious grounds, so courts refuse their evidence. What does that show about the oath as a safeguard of justice?
- Two claimants to a throne swear opposite oaths, one to favour the old church, one the new. If God punishes oath-breakers, what task does that set Him?
- If oaths add no honesty and invite perjury, why has almost every institution kept demanding them?