Glen Pettigrove

ABSTRACT The philosophical literature on forgiveness has ignored a distinction that has a profound bearing on when we should forgive, namely, the distinction between attitudes and practices. Most of the literature focuses on the attitudes called for in the aftermath of wrongdoing. And it attempts to derive the ethics of forgiving directly from the ethical profile of those attitudes. However, attitudes underdetermine what one ought to do. I argue that assessing what we should do also requires us to consider practices. Although I focus on forgiveness, the argument generalizes to other areas. Taking the distinction between attitudes and practices seriously will change the way we approach not only the question, ‘When should one forgive?’ but also, for example, ‘When should one be grateful?’ ‘When should one blame?’ ‘When should one honour?’ or any other activity that includes an attitude as a defining feature.

The role of religious commitments in John Rawls’s version of political liberalism has drawn frequent criticism. Some of the critics have complained that it fails to respect those with deep religious commitments by excluding explicitly religious reasons from debate about fundamental issues of justice. Others criticize the exclusion of religious reasons on the ground that it is unnecessary. Political liberalism, they argue, can accommodate appeals to religious reasons. For critics of both stripes, Jürgen Habermas and Thomas Scanlon should seem a welcome alternative. They offer ways of justifying claims of justice and of legitimating political arrangements that do not appear to exclude religious reasons at the outset but still yield liberal polities. In this paper, I argue that Habermas’s and Scanlon’s theoretical frameworks are not only open to religious reasons, they require the inclusion of religious reasons in deliberations about the just ordering of public life. I then explain why such an arrangement is desirable. I close with a look at the limits of Habermas’s and Scanlon’s ability to accommodate religiousreasons in public deliberation, suggesting that their improvements on Rawls are smaller than they at first appear.

Of the many forgiveness-related questions that she takes up in her novels, the one with which Iris Murdoch wrestles most often is the question, ‘Is forgiveness possible without God?’ The aim of this paper is to show, in the first instance, why the question Murdoch persistently raises is a question worth asking. Alongside this primary aim stands a secondary one, which is to consider how one might glean moral insights from the Christian tradition even if one does not (any longer) endorse its theological commitments.

The paper offers a qualified defense of religious indoctrination, pursuing three primary lines of argument. First, it contends that it can be virtuous to indoctrinate, even if the doctrines one instils are wrong. Second, it argues that religious indoctrination per se does not undercut a person’s autonomy. Finally, it defends the claim that, as a general practice, religious indoctrination does not make the world worse off than it would otherwise be, even if believing in a particular doctrine or being brought up in a particular religious community sometimes may.

The virtues have long played a central role in Christian moral teaching. Not surprisingly, over the centuries theologians have produced a number of interesting versions of virtue ethics. In spite of the fact that they hearken back to and are profoundly shaped by a shared set of canonical texts, theological commitments, and ritual observances, many of these versions of virtue ethics differ quite markedly from one another. The perfectionism of Wesley’s A Plain Account of Christian Perfection is as different from the agapism of Edwards’ The Nature of True Virtue as it is like it. And neither of them could easily be confused with the natural law theory that Thomas Aquinas develops in the Summa Theologica. Given the length, breadth, and sophistication of this tradition, Christian moral theology offers a wealth of resources for contemporary virtue ethicists, whether or not those ethicists are working within a Christian theological framework. This chapter will highlight four strands within recent theologically-informed work on virtue ethics, each of which is directly relevant to current controversies in both moral theology and moral philosophy.

A complete analysis of group knowledge would include an account of the acquisition and revision of group beliefs. This paper explores what an account of group belief revision would require. Focusing on moral communities and moral beliefs, I identify a number of ways in which such communities might revise their beliefs. And I develop an account of group belief revision that can accommodate modifications of a) propositional content, b) non-propositional content, c) understanding and d) conception.

The Israel-Palestine conflict stands at the heart of tensions in the Middle East and, more than that, at the heart of tensions between the West and the Islamic world. It is sometimes suggested that the resolution of this conflict will require forgiveness on the part of both Palestine and Israel. However, what such forgiveness would involve has not been adequately explored. Our aim is to remedy this gap in the discussion. Our consideration of Palestinian political forgiveness will address three principal questions. The first is a definitional question: what is political forgiveness? Our answer to this question will involve, among other things, articulating an account of collective emotions. The second question is an agential question: is there a Palestinian agent capable of forgiving Israel? Finally, there is the normative question: should Palestinians forgive Israel?

In the 1720s Francis Hutcheson developed a systematic account of the origins of ethical judgments that would have a profound influence on later writers. Ethical judgments, he argues, arise from the perceptions of internal senses that are, themselves, rooted in ‘Passions and Affections’. This paper describes his account and draws attention to an important tension at its heart. When judging particular cases, Hutcheson praises kindly, generous, and merciful affections as exemplary. But when he proposes a mathematical formula for ‘computing the Goodness’ of a person’s character, this formula yields results that are at odds with many of his judgments about the kindly, generous, and merciful. I trace the sources of this tension and identify ways in which Hutcheson might have avoided it.

Is it accurate to speak of ‘Hindu virtue ethics’? Or would that amount to forcing the tradition into a conceptual framework it does not fit? The answers to these questions will depend upon (1) what one means by “virtue ethics”, (2) how one restricts the scope of the term “Hindu ethics”, and (3) whether one is construing the question as about the “external” or “internal” history of Hindu ethics. We consider three accounts of what it means to be “an ethics of virtue” and use them to identify senses in which it is reasonable to speak of Hindu virtue ethics and senses in which it is not. We close with a look at one Indian philosophical school whose ethical commitments appear to fit within a virtue ethical frame, namely, the Yoga school. We argue that Yoga ethics offers the resources for developing a Hindu example of agent-based virtue ethics. The paper will be of value both to those with an interest in Hindu ethics as well as to those from other traditions who wish to understand the underlying structure of virtue ethical theories, in general, or of agent-based forms of virtue ethics, in particular.

Recent years have witnessed a renewed interest in forgiveness and apology in a number-of disciplines, including political science, sociology, psychology, theology and philosophy. Many of these discussions have been hampered by a lack of clarity regarding the concepts and practices relevant to seeking and offering forgiveness. The following studies analyze apologizing, forgiving and related practices in order to promote a better understanding of apology and forgiveness in personal and political contexts. ;Chapter one addresses the question of the appropriateness of a Congressional apology for American slavery. After offering an account of what an apology entails, I consider the claim that today's Congress fails to stand in the right relation to the guilt of American slavery to apologize for it. I argue that, while the current Congress and the constituency it represents does not bear a guilt that would permit it to apologize for slavery, it has inherited a guilt related to slavery for which it is appropriate for it to apologize. ;Chapter two uses an account of the illocutionary force of "I forgive you" to clarify what we mean by forgiveness. Following an analysis of what it would mean for "I forgive you" to be uttered with behabitive, assertive, declarative, and commissive force, I suggest that the forgiveness for which we hope has both behabitive and commissive force. ;In chapter three I take up the question of the relation between understanding and forgiving. It is often thought that to promote understanding is, ipso facto, to promote forgiveness; however, the relation between forgiving and understanding is not altogether straightforward. In many situations, understanding leads to reconciliation by way of justification or excuse, rather than forgiveness. Nonetheless, I identify one type of understanding that may promote forgiveness in cases of unexcused wrongdoing. ;I close with a look at the leading objections to forgiving the unapologetic. The response to these objections sheds light on the relationship between forgiveness and trust, condonation, self-respect, punishment, justice and apology. I argue that it is both possible and permissible to forgiven the unapologetic