Why honour the dead's requests? They're dead, after all; they can't complain, and they won't, because they have not be wronged, because they aren't. The dead don't exist like the living exist, so why care?

I was thinking about this, and I watched a video that talked a little bit about it, but I wasn't satisfied; not that I'm satisfied at all by my own conclusions on the matter, if these half-baked thoughts could even be called conclusions.

People do things. From a person spring actions that influence the world around them, including other people, including themselves. These tides are sometimes clear and easy to follow to the source, but oftentimes they are so intermixed with so many other tides, combining constructively and destructively in ways that are effectively unpredictable, that it's impossible to attribute responsibility to anyone directly for what they have impressed upon the world.

Why is it that you break your promises? I imagine everyone has broken a promise, at some point in their life, though even if they haven't that's not actually material to my argument; all it matters is that you recognise that people do break promises. Why? When you see someone break a promise, you may think less of them, you may judge them negatively, you may mistrust them in the future; this is not good for that person. Of course, people do misguided things all the time, and breaking a promise that you ought to keep might be one of those misguided actions, but it might also not be; in other words: some promises you ought to break. Why? I go back to my generally egoistic perspective: people do things if they think they should. Promises aren't kept because of moral obligation, but only because one calculates that the benefits of keeping the promise outweigh the negatives, simple as.

That phrasing may make it sound begrudging, but it isn't necessarily so; you could judge that the action you promised to do is very beneficial to you, to the point that you may have done it even if you hadn't promised it. We actually see this a lot, like when people make promises to themselves to "work out in the new year" and such; they recognise the promises are things they should do, regardless of whether or not they're promises; the promises are just a mental trick to try and get the individual to go through with the good action.

Anyway, how then is the calculation made? Specifically, if the person you made a promise to is not yourself, how can you calculate whether or not keeping a promise is a net positive? You judge the action itself, of course, as well as taking into account the effects of inaction; you consider possible alternative actions; but, at the end of the day, you simply can't always tell exactly what outcome something will have. You can't tell how the tides will shift.

Throughout your whole life, you've been tracing these tides. Subconsciously, but consciously as well. It's important, helpful, and useful to know who's to blame for things, good and bad things alike. Then, when it comes to keeping a promise, you consider also who you're keeping it to. Someone with a proven track record of influencing things positively, or not? More goes into it, of course, it's a complex process, but that's, I think, the key to the initial question.

Why honour the dead's requests? Because the dead are still alive in their actions. They may have stopped moving, but the tides that have sprouted from them have not stopped flowing, influencing, changing those around them. When keeping a promise to the dead, you do the exact same as when keeping a promise to the living: you calculate. Their status as alive or dead is immaterial! The question is: should this tide that they hoped would flow flow? The answer, of course, is that it depends.

On the person, on the tide, and on the consequences of inaction. Possibly among other things.

Anyway, I wore my anthracite suit, today. Very nice!

I haven't been eating much, but I feel fine, I guess. A little hungrier than usual, but nothing crazy.