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 Uptake has a 'backward reach', meaning uptake must be capable of being satisfied after the promissory obligation has already attached.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Austinian speech act theory requires uptake to be contemporaneous with illocution, not retroactively satisfied after the act is complete.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If uptake can occur after obligation attaches, the illocutionary force of promising is severed from the social recognition that constitutes it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An obligation that exists prior to its constitutive conditions being met is not a promissory obligation but a unilateral intention with no binding normative ground.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Scanlon's contractualist account grounds promissory obligation in the promisee's reasonable reliance, which cannot precede the promisee's awareness of the promise.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Positing backward-reaching uptake conflates the moral weight of self-binding declarations with the genuinely bilateral structure that distinguishes promises from mere intentions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Cases exist in which promisees are delayed, absent, or not yet specified at the time the promissory obligation is created.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.In such cases, the promissory obligation attaches before the promisee can satisfy uptake conditions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A coherent account of promising must allow uptake to be satisfied in these cases.
      ?

      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.