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
    Performative forgiveness need not possess only one kind o... — Carmelics
    Home/Forgiveness & Mercy
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Performative forgiveness need not possess only one kind of illocutionary force.

    Forgiveness & Mercy
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1."I forgive you" can function as both a behabitive and commissive.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Some hold that it can function as a behabitive, commissive, and declarative.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Austin's speech act taxonomy requires that each illocutionary act possess a single, determinate force fixed by its felicity conditions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Allowing 'I forgive you' to bear multiple simultaneous illocutionary forces collapses the analytic distinctions Austin's framework was designed to preserve.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without a univocal illocutionary force, the utterance loses the normative accountability structure that makes performatives binding.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Searle's principle of expressibility holds that the meaning of a sincere performative is exhausted by its propositional content and a single corresponding illocutionary point.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Topics

    Forgiveness & Mercy

    Related

    "I forgive you" can function as both a behabitive and commissive.Allowing 'I forgive you' to bear multiple simultaneous illocutionary forces coll...Austin's speech act taxonomy requires that each illocutionary act possess a sing...If forgiveness utterances genuinely possessed multiple irreducible illocutionary...
    +3 moreShow less
    Searle's principle of expressibility holds that the meaning of a sincere perform...Some hold that it can function as a behabitive, commissive, and declarative.Without a univocal illocutionary force, the utterance loses the normative accoun...

    Similar

    Whether forgiveness is compatible with self-respect does not depend on...81%Reconciliation is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for f...80%Premature forgiveness (forgiveness absent the required process) may be...80%Self-forgiveness serves the purpose of restoring wrongdoers to full mo...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted3/3 agreementValid
    SEP: forgiveness
    Pettigrove (2004a, 2012); Warmke (2016b)
    View source passageHide passage
    Three clarifications about performative accounts are in order. First, one need not think that performative forgiveness possesses only one kind of illocutionary force. Pettigrove (2004a, 2012), for example, argues that “I forgive you” can function as both a behabitive and commissive. Some hold that it can function as a behabitive, commissive, and declarative (Warmke 2016b). Second, defenders of performative accounts need not hold that acts of forgiveness qua performative, must always function in the same way, for it might be that even if “the language of forgiveness is quite often put to a perf...
    Extraction notes

    Validity: The passage explicitly presents the claims by Pettigrove and Warmke about multiple illocutionary forces as support for the first clarification that performative forgiveness need not possess only one kind of illocutionary force.

    Confidence: Clearly stated in the text as the first clarification.

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit