If forgiveness utterances genuinely possessed multiple irreducible illocutionary forces, speakers could not know which commitment they were undertaking, undermining the practice's moral coherence.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Illocutionary Force(what a speaker actually accomplishes with their words): The real-world effect or intention behind what you say—for example, when you say 'Can you close the door?' the illocutionary force is a *request*, not just a question about ability.
Moral coherence(in ethics): When your actions, beliefs, and values fit together logically without contradicting each other.
Speech Act Theory(the main theory being discussed): A philosophical framework that studies how language doesn't just describe things—it actually *does* things, like when saying 'I promise' creates an obligation or 'I declare you married' performs an action.
commitment(Game-theoretic bargaining strategy): A binding obligation, such as a contract, that removes a party's freedom to choose an alternative course of action and thereby makes their stated threat believable

Based on where you are in your exploration