According to a popular view, excuses undermine blameworthiness. At the same time, philosophers commonly accept that blameworthiness is composed of two necessary conditions: a moral objectionability condition and a responsibility condition. For excuses to do their job, they must undermine at least one of these conditions. In this paper, I conclude that excuses do neither. By inference to the best explanation, I propose a view that reconciles this conclusion with the function of excuses.

The dichotomy made by Jankélévitch between excusing the ignorant and forgiving the wicked serves first as a key to analyzing Derrida's logic of forgiving the unforgivable. Fiasse shows Jankélévitch's influence on Derrida in spite of their opposite conclusions. The author highlights several limits in the literature on forgiveness caused by knowledge and wickedness being too strongly opposed to ignorance and excusing. She turns to Aristotle in order to emphasize the forgiveness of voluntary actions that are not necessarily ill-intended. She insists (...) on the role of apologies, the degree of personal commitment in the disapproval of the action, the harm done to the victim, the distinction between matters of slight and strong importance, the different kinds of ignorance and responsibility, and the crucial role of regret. (shrink)

This paper defends an account of forgiveness that is sensitive to recent work on anger. Like others, we claim anger involves an appraisal, namely that someone has done something wrong. But, we add, anger has two further functions. First, anger communicates to the wrongdoer that her act has been appraised as wrong and demands she feel guilty. This function enables us to explain why apologies make it reasonable to forgo anger and forgive. Second, anger sanctions the wrongdoer for what she (...) has done. This function allows us to explore the moral status of forgiveness, including why forgiveness is typically elective. (shrink)