RIHLA #22

---

I think that the government SHOULD NOT have to abide by the commitments that was made by previous predecessors. This is because even the our government made this deal with a certain person in the past it can negatively effect everyone in the present and the future. The deal that was made back then may have been what was best for the government at that time but we all know that the world and cultures evolve over time. Therefore, by keeping old commitments shouldn't be a necessary action by the government. An older agreement should not determine what the right thing is to do in the present because anything can change in the world whether it is for better or worse. But this also brings up the conflict between people because some believe that by not keeping commitments we are not setting a honorable reputation. We should not be held back by the decisions that were made in the past but instead focus on how no following the past will help us in the future. However this argument does bring up some questions into debate such as:

What if the decision in the past is the best but the people of the present are persuaded and distracted by the actions of the present.

Who decides what commitments are necessary to keep and which are ok to be broken?

Even though there probably will never be correct answers to these questions they bring up how values of the government change over time?

---