Abstract:
It’s generally wrong to break promises. But it’s not obvious why. TM Scanlon gives an influential answer, proposing that breaking promises involves violating what he calls a moral duty of fidelity. Niko Kolodny and R Jay Wallace have offered a sophisticated criticism of Scanlon’s account, arguing that it’s circular, and that his attempt to avoid the circularity won’t work. In this paper, I defend Scanlon against their attack. The second goal will be to explain why Scanlon’s theory nevertheless faces serious problems. In particular, Scanlon’s approach incorrectly implies that some people lack the ability to make binding promises, even though it’s clear that they have this ability. Given this objection, this paper then presents and defends a modified Scanlonian approach to promissory obligation that preserves his key insights, avoids the problems, and removes the risk of circularity pointed out by Kolodny and Wallace.
Encarnacion, Erik, Reviving the Assurance Conception of Promising (December 15, 2013). Journal of Value Inquiry 48:107-129 (2014).
First posted 2014-06-11 06:07:13
Leave a Reply