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, Bovensor 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 doesnt. 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 reader who does not yet agree. In contrast, a critique identifies flaw, defect, or weakness in the reasoning of an argument, without taking sides on whether the arguments conclusion what it is arguing foris correct.)
