Advertisement

Taking a Stance: An Account for Persons and Institutions

  • Jeffrey S. HelmreichEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology book series (PEPRPHPS, volume 20)

Abstract

Certain commissive speech acts, such as “I forgive you,” “I’m in favor,” “Thank you” and “Sorry,” are often characterized as “expressives,” utterances whose primary function is to express a psychological state (so thanks expresses gratitude, apologies express remorse, and so on). In contrast, I argue here that such utterances are stance-takings: speech acts that commit the speaker to behave towards others in light of a normative position she accepts. I argue that stance-taking, as developed here, makes better sense of these utterances than the standard expressivist account, in terms of their meaning and the norms (both linguistic and moral) that govern their use. It also better accounts for how non-personal institutions – corporations, countries and courts, for example – can perform these utterances sincerely.

References

  1. Hannah Arendt, “The Decline of the Nation-State and the End of the Rights of Man,” in H. Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism. (Harcourt: 1968).Google Scholar
  2. J.L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words (Harvard: 1955)Google Scholar
  3. Kent Bach, “Introduction,” in R. Harnish, ed., Basic Topics in the Philosophy of Language (Prentice Hall: 1994).Google Scholar
  4. Arthur C. Danto, “Basic Actions and Basic Concepts,” the Review of Metaphysics 32:3 (1979).Google Scholar
  5. Peter A French, “The Corporation as a Moral Person,” American Philosophical Quarterly 16 (1979): 207-215.Google Scholar
  6. Margaret Gilbert, “Collective Guilt and Collective Guilt Feelings,” Journal of Ethics, Col. 6 (2002): 115-143.Google Scholar
  7. Bethany Gray and Douglas Biber, “Stance Markers,” in K. Aijmer & C. Rühlemann , eds., Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook (Cambridge: 2014).Google Scholar
  8. Charles Griswold, Forgiveness: a Philosophical Exploration (Cambridge: 2007).Google Scholar
  9. Jeffrey S. Helmreich, “The Apologetic Stance,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 43:2 (2015), pp. 75-108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Pamela Hieronymi, “Articulating an Uncompromising Forgiveness,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 62:3 (2001), pp. 529-555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. David Kaplan, “The meaning of Ouch and Oops,” Paper delivered as UC Berkeley Graduate Council Lecture, accessed via web at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaGRLlgPl6w (April 24, 2004).
  12. Christopher Kutz, Complicity (Cambridge: 2007).Google Scholar
  13. Kathleen Dean Moore, Pardons: Justice, Mercy, and the Public Interest (Oxford: 1989).Google Scholar
  14. Jeffrie Murphy, Getting Even: Forgiveness and its Limits (Oxford: 2003).Google Scholar
  15. Philip Pettit, “Groups with Minds of Their Own,” in Frederick F. Schmitt, ed., Socializing Metaphysics: the Nature of Social Reality (Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield: 2003), pp. 167-94.Google Scholar
  16. Norvin Richards, “Forgiveness”, Ethics, 99:1 (1988), pp. 77-97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gilbert Ryle, The Concept of Mind (University of Chicago Press: 1949).Google Scholar
  18. John Searle, “A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts,” in John R. Searle, Expression and Meaning (Cambridge: 1985), pp. 1-30.Google Scholar
  19. John R. Searle, Making the Social World (Oxford: 2010).Google Scholar
  20. Seana Valentine Shiffrin, “Reparations for U.S. Slavery and Justice over Time,” in David Waserman and Melinda Roberts, eds., Harming Future Persons. (Springer: 2009).
  21. J. David Velleman, “Love as a Moral Emotion,” Ethics 109 (1999), pp. 343-44.Google Scholar
  22. Gary Watson, “Free Agency,” The Journal of Philosophy 72 (1975), pp. 205-220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of California, IrvineIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations