A question being asked, that which promises should be kept when we will break one if we are to keep the other. Personally, a simple law can be used, say, first come first serve. Perhaps people may be wondering why, but what’s with the complication when we can simplify one particular issue? We have been complicating things, from what we are learning to what we are applying in life. How do we even get ourselves into such in the first place, that we have to choose breaking one of the promises being made? Do we not think before we are to give someone our words? Do we not know that it clashes with another promise we’ve already made beforehand? Do we simply make promises for the sake of it? Think again. There are times where we need no to choose between two and we certainly been given the chance, just that we missed it. During an interview, we can choose not to use the answer the interviewers have listed; for example, what do we do when we are hitting the deadline for a report and coincidently one of our relatives died? Do we choose to attend the funeral or to finish off our task? Why must it be between those two answers? Why can’t it be we have already prepared the report way before the due date, thus we can attend the funeral? We choose to make promises and we certainly given the chance to not make one, to not complicate the situation, to not put ourselves into hard times where we need to make up our mind between the paths provided, to take on the path on our own, the path that we have created. The action taken will be done, first come first serve.
