EXCLUSIVE: Brian O’Kelley says he’s capped his wealth to $100 million. The tech founder tells Fortune, billionaires are wasteful, out of touch, and “othered” from real life.
A young Russian nobleman intends to give his estate to peasants upon inheriting them. He also realizes that over time, his ideals might fade. Thus, he puts his ideas down into a legal document that can only be revoked by his wife. He makes her promise not to consent if he changes his mind later on.
At the time, he argues these core beliefs are an essential part of him, stating: “If I lose these ideals, I want you to think that I cease to exist.”
Now suppose 50 years later, he changes his mind and asks his wife to revoke the documents. The wife made a promise to the young nobleman. Is the old nobleman, with all his memories and new beliefs, the same person as the young nobleman? What should she do?
Obviously as she promised, it doesn’t matter what happens after that. Promises are made to be kept, don’t make them unless you keep them. Only good reasons I can think of for breaking a promise would be something like if you were lied to when making that promise, or saving lives or maybe prevent nature destruction etc. Old dude changing his mind isn’t a proper reason; if he feels like he was young and stupid back then, that’s his problem
Maybe I’m missing something, seems like an easy “paradox” to solve:
The legal regime recognizes the person as the same person, proven by the very premise of the question, that the older nobleman retains ownership over the funds. The wife should honor the promise because she made the promise with a person continuous with the younger nobleman in the relevant aspect (it is legal document). The fact that the older nobleman has different beliefs is irrelevant because the question already concedes primacy to the law, implicit in the law protecting the older gentleman’s right to dictate disposition of the funds. Someone enlighten me if I’m missing the point?
Now… if the younger nobleman disclaimed his old self and all prior inheritance (or had amnesia and lost all connection to his prior self), and built a new fortune somehow covered by the earlier promise, that would be a more interesting question. Then the person may not be continuous for ethical/duty purposes yet still continuous for legal purposes.
TIL
If the old nobleman is considered a different person than his younger self - then the entire concept of promises is voided.
Obviously as she promised, it doesn’t matter what happens after that. Promises are made to be kept, don’t make them unless you keep them. Only good reasons I can think of for breaking a promise would be something like if you were lied to when making that promise, or saving lives or maybe prevent nature destruction etc. Old dude changing his mind isn’t a proper reason; if he feels like he was young and stupid back then, that’s his problem
Count Theseuski
Maybe I’m missing something, seems like an easy “paradox” to solve:
The legal regime recognizes the person as the same person, proven by the very premise of the question, that the older nobleman retains ownership over the funds. The wife should honor the promise because she made the promise with a person continuous with the younger nobleman in the relevant aspect (it is legal document). The fact that the older nobleman has different beliefs is irrelevant because the question already concedes primacy to the law, implicit in the law protecting the older gentleman’s right to dictate disposition of the funds. Someone enlighten me if I’m missing the point?
Now… if the younger nobleman disclaimed his old self and all prior inheritance (or had amnesia and lost all connection to his prior self), and built a new fortune somehow covered by the earlier promise, that would be a more interesting question. Then the person may not be continuous for ethical/duty purposes yet still continuous for legal purposes.