This paper takes an ontological approach to the subject of promising. Setting aside the typical concern over promissory obligations, I draw on recent work from the field of social ontology and develop a promissory schema that characterizes the functional role the practice of promising plays in our lives. This schema, put in terms of one agent’s voluntary and intentional attempts to provide another agent with a specific kind of assurance, helps explain what we are doing when we make a promise, (...) and what we desire when we ask that a promise be made. The promissory schema is explanatorily beneficial as it can help us understand why certain actions may be interpreted as promises, thereby reminding us that we need to be sensitive to the ways our actions can give rise to expectations in others. (shrink)

Conventionalism about promising is the view that the power to make binding promises depends essentially on the existence of a social practice or convention of promising. This paper explores an objection to conventionalism that says that—(allegedly) contra conventionalism—there is no morally acceptable world in which we lack the power of promise. Instead, normative powers theorists claim that our power of promise is morally basic or necessary. I argue that the conventionalist need not deny this claim. There are several ways to (...) develop a noncontingent conventionalism: a version of the view that can accommodate the insight that the power of promise is indispensable to morally acceptable lives. Then, I argue that the conventionalist is indeed on the hook for accommodating this insight. I wrap up by considering the state of play in the debate over conventionalism about promising. Once we note the theoretical possibility of noncontingent conventionalism, it looks like the theatre of battle shifts to the difficult question of whether “natural” morality always provides “moral necessities.”. (shrink)

Journal of Social Philosophy, EarlyView.

Elizabeth Brake presents a plausible contradiction: Promise breaking is regarded as impermissible, and marital promises are regarded as legitimate promises, however, we take divorce, which is a breaking of a marital promise, as generally permissible. Brake’s response to the inconsistency of these beliefs is to assert that we misunderstand marital promises altogether. She argues that marital vows misfire because they attempt to make promises about what one cannot control, one’s emotions—namely love. My project will be in response to this view. (...) First, I contend that Brake is wrong to think that marriage vows are illegitimate promises and second, I offer what I take to be a stronger resolution to the divorce inconsistency posed by Brake. (shrink)