"Hornsby on Slurs": A Title that I Have a Use for Whose Meaning Is Not of Importance

1. I agree with this notion of speaking about derogatory words in such a way that moves away from sort of descriptionist/verificationist methods. When we consider the ethics of slurs especially, it seems that our focus should not be the meaning that these words entail or the claims expressed when these words are used, but rather the illocutionary force behind them.

2. I think a point of contention on the ethical analysis of things is the sort of utilitarian language that is used to express the unethical practices of derogatory use. When we speak of derogatory words as there being no use for them, it seems to imply this sort of thinking that it's wrong because it serves no greater good and we shouldn't use it because it serves no purpose. While that may in fact be the case, I think there is something deeper about the ethical problems that come with using slurs and the fact that slurs serve no greater purpose is a corollary of what is actually wrong about their use.

3. I think the account does a good job attempting to locate language in a more human-centric way where it's important to look at the way individuals use language as important to a general discussion on language and thus use of derogatory language. I think, however, that this move looks at language use as actions themselves and thus the ethical problem lies within the act and the act themselves should be of ethical analysis and this seems to be different from the analysis that Hornsby puts forth - that language is used for purposes.