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
- When a person who takes an oath seriously swears it, are they any more bound than the law already makes them?
- Isn't there something an oath does that a mere penalty cannot, calling a person before their own conscience rather than a court?
- How would you tell an oath that genuinely binds from one that merely rehearses a form nobody means?
- What does a society lose by treating the solemn word as a formality to be got through?
- If oaths add no honesty and invite perjury, why has almost every institution kept demanding them?