For Mon Nov 3

The question of the day concerns the definition of keeping promises as a possible social construct.
I think the obvious answer is yes, we likely did, as a society, decide that it would be right, and to the benefit of society as a whole, to have our promises kept.
Once again, I want to use the concept of sympathy in my explanation.
Most actions are performed based on contracts: I will do something to benefit you, as long as you agree to do something to benefit me. For significant actions, ones that are seen as being of great importance to one or both of the parties involved, written contracts are generally used. However, in some cases, written contracts are impossible or unnecessary and verbal contracts are enough.
It was this need for verbal contracts that led to the establishment of promises as a basis for expectation. And it is this basis of expectation that allows for the keeping of promises to be considered “right” and the breaking “wrong.” Because one expects the other to hold up his end of the deal, so to speak, when the promise is kept, the result is a feeling of pleasure at having been granted the desired benefits agreed upon and promised. When one experiences this feeling of pleasure, the other can often experience a sympathy resulting in his own feeling of pleasure. It is this shared happiness that encourages each party to do as promised.
While no other right is necessarily depending on that of having our promises kept, and neither is having our promises kept necessarily dependent on any other rights, we find that this pleasure as described previously is dependent on honored verbal contracts. Thus, it could be said that our right to happiness is somewhat dependent on our ability and willingness to keep our promises, which would in turn encourage others to keep their promises.