Commitment_is_what?

First let's assume that we are always changing as humans, which we might not be.
If we are always changing as humans does that mean it's pointless to try and commit to things? I don't mean 'oh I'll commit to going to X show/movie/etc' I mean long-term commitments. Marriage, religion, vegetarianism, veganism, pacifism, celibacy, etc.


If we take a nihilist view then sure. Why commit when things are useless? Not only that but why would one, with a nihilistic view every care to make a commitment? Perhaps I'm not as well read on the subject as I ought to be before making judgments like this, but I'll just glide over that for now.


If we take an existentialistic view then we'd have to decide if we think everyone should stick to their commitments, if they make them. We'd also need to decide if commitment is something worthy of the required effort for people as a whole.


So this brings the question to mind, what prevents people from holding to commitments?

If we look at marriage we might assume it's society. Society used to say (and still does in parts of the world) that marriage is something you don't get out of. In the 1950's one didn't just end a marriage, these days it's significantly easier for a number of reasons. It's not as big a taboo, 'everyone is doing it', the ideal of 'Love' has changed, etc. For these reasons and more, divorce is now 'okay'. Ideally no one wants to get divorce, no. We all want our precious perfect relationship to work, yet that's not how it goes. Is it because we have become lazy with love? Decided that the ideal we have now, 'fuzzy feelings', 'being in love', and other such factors are more important than the traditional ideals?
Speaking of the traditional ideals, are those even worth our time/effort? I may be wrong due to my age, but I thought the traditional ideals of love were stick together because you made a commitment. Rough patches come and go for all, right? But, is that not what they were?
So this is a whole different topic, about love (the key in marriage? or is dedication the key to marriages that last?) which I won't venture into at the moment.

Let's look at the commitment of pacifism, how often does one take a vow, personal or public, and gives up on that commitment? A pacifist that ends up going to war, is that breaking his ideal if he's drafted? Does that make a difference? Perhaps the pacifist gets annoyed at a person and wishes to take a swing at them. What do they do? Nothing in an ideal world. What sometimes happens, they take that swing. What caused that swing? A desire to retaliate against words or actions. So if that desire is 'pure', a desire to protect an innocent, does the pacifist break the commitment? One could say it depends on what they vowed. Take the following vow for example, "I will not, under any circumstances, harm another human."
With that vow, taking a swing at another will always be a breach of their vow. So even to save another's life, the pacifist would not be able to use means of harm. Yes we could get into what it means to harm another, instead let's call harm any action of self which might cause bodily harm. An example being a punch.


What are the main forces that prevent people from keeping commitments?
Is it their desires?

So I wonder then, what (if any) correlation there is between an atheistic society and commitments. Are religious people, who are more likely to commit to things, more or less likely to keep their commitments?

This is quite interesting to me.
So...