Come up with a way you wronged someone and made up for it according to the views of either Aristotle, Locke, or Boxill (say which one), but NOT according to either Radzik, Bovens or Hieronymi (say which one), and so the victim refuses to forgive you. Say

Come up with a way you wronged someone and made up for it according to the

views of either Aristotle, Locke, or Boxill (say which one), but NOT according to

either Radzik, Bovens or Hieronymi (say which one), and so the victim refuses to

forgive you. Say why. What action can you take that overcomes this remaining

complaint of theirs, but without using the explicit or implicit performative form of

apologies (which the victim never accepts)? Make a convincing argument for why

this further action justifies forgiving you, and then an equally convincing

argument for why it doesn’t. Finally, give a critique of one of those two

arguments.

(NOTE: an argument makes a convincing case for a conclusion, using reasons

designed to move a reader who does not yet agree. In contrast, a critique

identifies a flaw, defect or weakness in the reasoning of an argument, without

taking sides on whether the argument’s conclusion – what it is arguing for – is

correct.)