Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
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 think that only speech acts can fulfill the performative functions of forgiving.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Austin's speech act theory grounds illocutionary force in conventional linguistic procedures, not in mere expressive behavior.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Extending performative accounts to non-linguistic acts dissolves the criterial distinctness that makes performatives philosophically tractable.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Without linguistic conventionality, there is no principled basis for distinguishing a forgiving gesture from a mere expression of resumed goodwill.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Jeffrie Murphy argues forgiveness requires an internal moral transaction that overcomes resentment for the right reasons, not a communicative act of any kind.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If gestures and expressions can perform forgiveness, the account collapses into an attitudinal view, undermining the distinctiveness performativists claim.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
Cognate communicative acts, gestures, and facial expressions may achieve the same result as utterances of "I forgive you".
?
How convincing is this?
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.