Would You Rather Make a Contract or Take a Vow?
David Hume writes that the ability to make and enter into contracts is a hallmark of a free society. The Talmud—says Rabbi Michael Broyde—argues the opposite: We are free precisely when we break contracts. From a religious point of view, it is the vow—not the contract—that is binding. That’s because a vow, in contrast, to a contract, is self-inflicted; we are allowed to submit to our own will, but we are not to be held hostage by someone else’s.
Which approach do you resonate with more? How does your attitude to your commitments change when you view them as contracts (other-centric) vs. vows (self-centric)? Would you rather violate a contract or a vow? Why? Would society be better or worse off if there were a secular legal mechanism for allowing people to take binding vows, such as, “I promise to hop on one foot every Tuesday for 10 minutes at 1pm”?
In this time taking vows is not as usual as is used to be before 1900. Now we are objects, more like products and live in a ecconomy of symbols as Baudrillard says, but yes there is a strong symbol for commitment and is that of obedience. I think in modern society direct obedience is far more effective as a vow. You can take all kind of internarl vows and even external but everything around you changes so fast you can even strenght on that vow. So I understand it more like propaganda for right and direct obedience and I don't think is a bad thing.