Glen Pettigrove

In philosophical discussions of wrongdoing, it is common to find people saying things such as, “If a person has been wronged, she should resent the wrongdoer.” Writers don’t always say why, but, if one wished to defend the claim, a promising place to turn would be to fitting attitude theories of value: One should feel anger or resentment, because that is the fitting (or accurate) response to wrongdoing. Fitting attitude theory can also help explain why some reasons for forgiving strike us as the wrong kinds of reasons. However, in spite of its attractions, I argue that fitting attitude theory fails to support the claim that those who have been wronged should be angry or resentful rather than forgiving. The argument highlights gaps that must be filled by any theory that attempts to move from judgments of fittingness to full-blown moral judgments.

Evidence matters for responsibility. This paper investigates implications of this insight for group responsibility and the literature on group belief. In particular, we will be focusing on the transmission of group responsibility from group to individual. We will argue that there are cases in which responsibility transmits fully (to all members of the group), partially (to some but not all of its members), or not at all (to none of its members), and we will explore some implications of these observations for accounts of group belief and evidence in the literature on social epistemology. More specifically, we will provide reason to think that these observations provide support for an account of group belief that we favour over its main rivals in the literature.

“Self-respect” and “virtue” are not discrete actions or events. They are aspects of a person’s character. And appealing to them invites us to think about the bearing traits of character might have on what it means to forgive, what makes it possible, and when doing so is good. This chapter focuses on some character questions and, in particular, on what thinking about virtue might teach us about forgiving. Section 1 will address the question, “Is forgiving virtuous?” Sections 2 and 3 will ask, “If forgiving is virtuous, what virtue does it manifest?”

ABSTRACT In virtually every corner of ethics—including discussions of value, practical reasoning, moral psychology, and justice—it is common for theorists to suggest that our actions, attitudes, or emotions should be proportional to the degree of value present in the objects or events to which they are responding. I argue that there is a fundamental problem with these approaches: they overlook the character of the agent and what it adds to the equation. I show that a commitment to proportionality is at odds with both ordinary and admirable instances of love, ambition, and forgiveness. To make room for disproportional attitudes and actions, I introduce a novel account of virtue and its relation to value.

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 essay 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

How do we punish others socially, and should we do so? In her 2018 Descartes Lectures for Tilburg University, Linda Radzik explores the informal methods ordinary people use to enforce moral norms, such as telling people off, boycotting businesses, and publicly shaming wrongdoers on social media. Over three lectures, Radzik develops an account of what social punishment is, why it is sometimes permissible, and when it must be withheld. She argues that the proper aim of social punishment is to put moral pressure on wrongdoers to make amends. Yet the permissibility of applying such pressure turns on the tension between individual desert and social good, as well as the possession of an authority to punish. Responses from Christopher Bennett, George Sher and Glen Pettigrove challenge Radzik's account of social punishment while also offering alternative perspectives on the possible meanings of our responses to wrongdoing. Radzik replies in the closing essay.

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.

What is the relationship between ambition and love? While discussions of happiness often mention romances, friendships, aspirations, and achievements, the relationship between these features is seldom discussed. This paper aims to fill that gap. It begins with a suggestive remark made by La Rochefoucauld and repeated by Adam Smith: ‘Love often leads on to ambition, but seldom does one return from ambition to love.’ To explain what accounts for such a pattern, I introduce a distinction between stage-setting emotions and master emotions, which is useful for illuminating relationships between a number of emotions, including ambition and love. Drawing on things Smith says elsewhere in the Theory of Moral Sentiments, I conclude by highlighting one way the pattern might be reversed and ambition might lead to love.

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

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?

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.

Lucretius thought that we should be as indifferent to the time of our death as we are toward the time of our birth. This paper will critique the ways in which Thomas Nagel, Frederik Kaufman and Christopher Belshaw have appealed to a psychological notion of the self in an attempt to defend our asymmetric intuitions against Lucretius’ claim. Four objections are marshalled against the psychological–self strategy: (1) the psychological notion of the self fails to capture all of our intuitions about selfhood; (2) some of the intuitions to which proponents of a psychological notion of the self appeal are drawn from irrelevant or misleading ethical and epistemological aspects of certain examples they consider; (3) the arguments developed on the basis of a psychological notion of the self do not answer Lucretius in the right way; and (4) the psychological–self explanation overlooks an important distinction between awareness–dependent and awareness–independent explanations. While the psychological–self explanation of the asymmetry in our attitudes toward the time of our birth and the time of our death may explain why Nagel, Kaufman and Belshaw have asymmetric attitudes, it fails to explain why most people have such attitudes.