DescentBB

░

I'd say there are two differences.

First, most would consider the former a liar, the latter not, even though neither gave an accurate representation of reality. Consider a teacher who says that you won't have any homework tonight but then later decides to assign homework. One might accuse the teacher of lying about there being no homework. Now consider a teacher who says that there will be homework tonight, but later decides that there won't be any. One would be hesitant to accuse the teacher of lying here. I think that this is because we look at these statements more as contracts than direct descriptions of reality. It's implicitly assumed that the person can meet or exceed the terms that they set out, even if they didn't explicitly say that they might exceed them.

The second difference is the obvious one--the former does not get the job done, whereas the latter does.

I think Jeff makes a good point: we consider people \"liars\" or \"unreliable\" when they make promises and then don't live up to them. But when they go above and beyond what was promised, then we consider them extraordinary.

Of course, what we mean by \"above and beyond\" or \"better\" isn't always straightforward. If someone says they're too sick to go outside today (and breaks off a prior commitment), and then we notice them outside, we don't always consider their getting up to be \"above and beyond\". Depending on the exact circumstances, we may consider their saying \"I can't\" to be a cheap excuse to break a commitment.

I think I fall under the latter, i hate making commitments that I dont know if I can complete, so unless Im absolutly sure I can commit to something I dont. So if somebody asks me to do something, I dont say sure, I dont say yes, I say no. if I have time and the task remains undone, then I will do it.

what drives me absolutly up the wall are the people who commit to something and then flat out do not do it. its an ethical dilemma imo, they said they would, therefore people relied on them to complete this task, if they dont do it, they have failed the others who are dependent on that task. whereas if I say I will not do it and do it anyway, I have failed no one, I have shocked them though.

Coincidentally, Jesus asked that question in Matthew 21
28\"What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, 'Son, go and work today in the vineyard.'

29\" 'I will not,' he answered, but later he changed his mind and went.

30\"Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, 'I will, sir,' but he did not go.

31\"Which of the two did what his father wanted?\"
\"The first,\" they answered.

I guess actions speak louder than words.

aye, words are hollow

You hypothetical situation is missing some important information, which prevents us from making accurate philosophical calls about it.

Firstly, the \"task\" - what is it? Is it to mow the lawn, wash the dishes, or to kill the nextdoor neighbour? The task defines what we might say about who has been asked to perform it - similarly, it bears on what we might accept regarding someone who says they WILL do it, then does not, and vice versa.

The ethics of the task bear strongly here.

Also, is the task legal? I'm thinking about the White House here...

a task is a task, either your going to do it or you arent, regardless a person is going to respond one way or another, and hats what this boils down to, and how the hell did you manage to bring the white house into this.