Philosophical argument challenges the necessity of intent in promises, suggesting new implications for speech acts.
Many, perhaps even most, philosophers hold that, in order to promise someone something, the promisor must intend to communicate what they are promising. I argue against this claim, explain why it matters to the nature of promising, and sketch an alternative picture of normatively powerful speech acts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Eliot Michaelson (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: