Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Defenders of performative accounts need not hold that acts of forgiveness qua performative must always function in the same way.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.A performative account derives its philosophical force from specifying necessary and sufficient conditions that demarcate forgiveness from adjacent acts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If 'I forgive you' can function as a behabitive in some contexts and a commissive in others, the account lacks the criterial unity needed to distinguish forgiveness from mere civility or condoning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An account that permits radical functional variation across tokens does not constitute a unified theory of forgiveness but merely a taxonomy of related speech acts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Austin's speech act framework, on which performative accounts typically rely, requires that a performative utterance be governed by conventional procedures with determinate uptake conditions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If 'I forgive you' does not always function in the same performatory way, there is no stable conventional procedure grounding its illocutionary force, undermining its status as a genuine performative.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Pace Neblett, functional pluralism collapses the performative account into an expressivist one, since the act's moral significance would then derive from inner states rather than conventional force.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The language of forgiveness is quite often put to a performatory use, and it is not always put to the same performatory use.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.It may be that sometimes "I forgive you" functions only as a behabitive, and other times also as a commissive.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.