Well to me a promise is made with the awareness that someone will be hurt if I break that promise. In itself it means nothing, its a means to an end. So if someone will be more hurt by keeping it, I will consider breaking that promise.
If people see me as less trustworthy as a result, well thats less important than other people sometimes. I suspect in practise most people would not feel I am completely untrustworthy as a result of the decision in this scenario.
Otara
Dead people don’t exist now–as none of us will, at some point–but that doesn’t mean they never existed, just as our own future nonexistence doesn’t mean we never existed. If you think a death that happens to have already happened removes the meaning from the life which preceded it, I don’t see why you shouldn’t hold that a future death similarly removes meaning–a classically nihilist position.
We may be at a metaphysical impasse here, having to do with understandings of reality and spacetime.
Well I could punch your dead body in the face or punch you right now.
Which would you metaphysically prefer?
Otara
It took me a second to figure how you quoted me before I posted. :smack:
I guess I’ll cast a silent vote for option 6, then.
You are untrustworthy as a result. You’re saying that unless you think I’m coming back to check on you, your word is worthless.
Oh, not to ignore other questions…
No. It was a bad promise to make, made for bad reasons under bad circumstances. (As you noted, it’s not at all comparable to the OP scenario.) Making the promise was wrong, particularly with the intent to “retain their love”–but forgivable. The parents’ actions were more wrong.
I believe that deception is categorically incompatible with respect and trust. In most situations, the respect involved is both respect for self and respect for the other; in general lying demeans both parties. There may be circumstances in which it is right to deceive someone, to avert a greater evil, but that won’t be someone you respect and care for.
Well Ill try to struggle on.
Most people arent quite so binary on these things.
Otara
How about a compromise.
Since Jack will never know, go ahead and bury him so that his mother will think they’ll be together forever.
Since she will never know, go ahead and cremate the mother-in-law when she dies.
I take it this was for me, since I mentioned metaphysics?
If you’re going to punch me, I sure as hell want you to do it while I’m alive. You would probably prefer the other way. 
I’d need to know some more information.
Finances – is the cost difference so little that it makes no practical difference to Hannah?
Is there anything else associated with the choice? For instance – some kind of religiously-based memorial service. One of my sisters fear that if our other sister tries to take over her burial plans, it will be all Christy. And I can see that Jack would not want his friends subjected to some strange religious spectacle.
As to the reasons why Jack supposedly wants a cremation – if there is already a bought and paid for family crypt, it’s hardly wasteful to not use it. What is poor Grace gonna do – advertise for a corpse to fill an unexpectedly empty empty bier?
If we want to go all hyper-technical (and why not?), I’d wonder how much energy a cremation takes vs. building a corpse box of some kind.
If Jack is really concerned about the environment, I would suggest Hannah look at corpse farms. Corpses are basically dumped out onto the ground and left to decompose, and the processes are studied for the benefit of science.
Burying Jack will comfort his mother and harm nobody. Cremating him will distress his mother and help nobody. Honoring the wishes of a dead body is irrational. It’s the living that matter. Dead bodies have no rights.
Substitute ‘shot in the back of the head’ if the manliness is getting in the way.
Sometimes being alive or dead does makes a bit of metaphysical difference when something is done to us.
Otara
I like this alternative.
If I take my own Christian view, of course I think you should honor your promise. Humans have inherent value, whether living or dead. And honesty has inherent value.
If, on the other hand, I take an atheist view, I still say you should honor your promise. Yes, for the trust reasons. If you do not honor this dead guy’s wishes, you admit to being somebody who lies to make people feel better. This causes you lose societal value. Lose enough value, and society has no reason to keep you around. It is your responsibility to good whenever possible so that, when you do inevitably screw up, you still have some points left. I considered the pain brought on the mother, and how she might react and decrease my social value, but I find it unlikely that I will be in any danger from her. Specifically because she is like a second mom to me, I doubt she will do anything to hurt me.
I’ve tried millions of times to make atheism and rationally work sufficiently to create morality, and this is the only system I can come up with. Be good to keep people in general from hating you, which increases the chances that a single person will harm you.
That said, assuming I made the arrangements properly, I wouldn’t mind alphaboi’s solution. Heck, there’s nothing wrong with not hurting the woman if you can while still remaining moral.
And I assume Hannah will make what I consider to be the immoral choice. That’s what people do for the people they love. While I would understand, I would still consider it immoral. And, from the atheist view, it most likely won’t decrease her social value more than she’d be willing to give.
My Dad wanted to be buried at sea, and we could have done so had we chosen cremation…
unfortunately, his Mom would not hear of it, and us kids were told in no uncertain terms that we were NOT going to follow my Dad’s wishes.
my sister and I are waiting for the last person who told us that to die so we can send our Dad where HE wanted to go.
Yes, I still feel badly about not honoring Dad’s stated preference.
Put him in the crypt. The needs of the living outweigh etc etc.
Also, Grace has been such a force for good in their lives. Would Jack have chosen cremation if he’d been aware that it would so bitterly grieve the mother who’d done so much for him and his family? I imagine that if he’d had that information before he died, he may have made a different choice.
If someone asks you do do something for them near or after death, they are expressing a deep trust of you. If you promise to carry out their wishes, that promise should not be made lightly nor treated lightly. It should not be made as a convenience or in order to pacify someone - such a promise should not be made unless you fully intend to carry it out.
It is in no way comparable to a promise made between the living – especially not a promise made under coercion as in the Lesbian/Christian example described earlier (any promise extracted by coercion or blackmail is both legally, and IMHO morally, a nullity). A promise between the living may be negotiated as long as both parties are alive. IMHO, when a promise is made in anticipation of death, and the promisee dies, the duty of the promisor becomes virtually absolute unless it is not possible to fulfill it.
I agree with Skald. Relieving the pain of the living outweighs a promise to someone who is dead and thus unmoved by the method of disposal of his remains.
The high King of all Kings of Narnia is either Frank (as first King) or Peter (High King during the golden age). Unless you are referring to Aslan of course.
So don’t make the promise if you think its of no consequence once the person is dead. Why would you lie to them like that while they’re alive?
Who says it’s a lie? I can fully intend to keep the promise and change my mind later.
How about if I promise to give his money to charity, and after he’s dead find out that his mom is on the brink of homelessness? I guess it’s tough luck mom, your son’s dough is going to help this greyhound adoption charity, have fun living on the street.
At some point the needs of the living outweigh the value of a promise to the dead.