I think this is where we move from morals to ethics - with ethics informing the better choice.

If we bring in the question of right or wrong, we forget the purpose of the apology, which is to show both sympathy and empathy. Best case, this undoes the wrong if it leads to a corrected misunderstanding - always a possibility. Worst case, someone apologizes to a selfish person to whom one has committed no real offense and the offense is confirmed in that person's mind.

But then again that was probably going to happen anyway.

The only reason I see not to err on the side of apology is when you feel you're being manipulated more than once into apologizing to a person who is trying to use conflict to raise status.

Does doing the wrong thing unintentionally (perhaps out of ignorance or fear) free a person from the responsibility of saying sorry? — darthbarracuda

But if you intentionally do the wrong thing, surely you must believe that in some larger way it is the right thing? So it would then be unreasonable to apologise - unless you have also come to believe you were in fact wrong and so changed your mind about what is right.

Whereas if you do something wrong by accident, then apologising is no big deal. You are not to blame. An accident is. You are apologising for an accident for which you are not responsible in any intentional sense.

Thus either you intentionally did it because it seemed right - so why apologise? Or you accidentally did it - and your apology is now essentially vacuous. The accident bears the burden of the blame. You are really saying you would have acted right if you could.

So these mark the two extremes. And neither accurately describe the majority of the real world encounters you are likely concerned about.

Where are apologies both morally warranted and meaningful? Well if you thought you were doing the right thing and later see it as being the wrong thing.

Then in practice, an apology is just a good way to head off social conflict no matter what the wrongs or rights. It is a pragmatic response if you don't want drama.

But what is life without drama? >:)

My view is that, no, a person should still apologize for what they have done even if they did it accidentally or did not mean to do the wrong thing, because apologizing is a way of communicating your recognition that what you did was, in fact, wrong to do. Not apologizing for doing the wrong thing in general means you either don't think it actually was the wrong thing to do, or you have a character flaw that precludes you from admitting failure and assuming responsibility. — darthbarracuda

If you cause harm by accident or through bad behavior, the correct actions are 1) acknowledge the error and 2) make things right. Giving an apology is like asking for forgiveness, you do something wrong to someone and then ask them to make it right. It lets you off the hook. It lets you avoid taking responsibility for your own actions.

Whereas if you do something wrong by accident, then apologising is no big deal. You are not to blame. An accident is. You are apologising for an accident for which you are not responsible in any intentional sense. — apokrisis

So, if I accidentally back my car into your mailbox, I am not responsible? It's "the accident's" fault?

The distinction between legal and moral responsibility?

The distinction between legal and moral responsibility? — Janus

I don't think legal responsibility comes into this. I guess we're talking about personal responsibility. Acknowledgement that my behavior caused someone harm and acceptance that I am obligated to make it right. Is that moral responsibility?

In cases where you damage something due to negligence I guess the question then becomes whether you were intentionally negligent.

I mean you might have intentionally allowed yourself to be slack about attending to what you were doing because you wanted to focus on something else. This would contrast with a case where your attention was inadvertently distracted by some dramatic event.

...

For me it comes down to what I feel compelled to apologize for. If I'm in a debate with someone and I unintentionally hurt their feelings, I'll likely apologize for making them feel hurt, but I probably won't apologize for thinking that I'm right in my position, only in the way in which I argued. In the event that someone fucks up in ignorance or fear, then that person cannot be entirely in the wrong, unless you put no value in intention.

But if you intentionally do the wrong thing, surely you must believe that in some larger way it is the right thing? So it would then be unreasonable to apologise - unless you have also come to believe you were in fact wrong and so changed your mind about what is right.

Whereas if you do something wrong by accident, then apologising is no big deal. You are not to blame. An accident is. You are apologising for an accident for which you are not responsible in any intentional sense. — apokrisis

People can do the wrong thing knowing it is the wrong thing because they do not care about morality, and care more about themselves or whatever. Promising a friend to do something for them but deciding to not fulfill this promise and go have fun partying or whatever instead is an example.

If I were to crash my car into someone else's on accident, I would feel compelled to apologize even though I didn't do it on purpose.

So, if I accidentally back my car into your mailbox, I am not responsible? It's "the accident's" fault? — T Clark

The law says you are responsible. It says you can't have been paying due care and attention. So now there is a social standard in place. And the OP seemed more directed at some kind of personal absolute morality than at social/legal norms.

If you insulted DB, called him an idiot, and there was a law that said you must apologise, then personal moral choices aren't really involved. It just a norm in play. You don't have to mean it when you do what you are supposed to do. It doesn't seem a character flaw to abide by a norm even when you don't accept it should apply in your circumstances. Instead, isn't that even more admirable? :)

So what would you actually do if you knocked over my mailbox? Would it depend on there being possible witnesses?

The problem with real life is there are always extenuating circumstances. Right and wrong can never be so black and white.

People can do the wrong thing knowing it is the wrong thing because they do not care about morality, and care more about themselves or whatever. — darthbarracuda

That's what I wonder. Can people actually choose to do wrong? If they are making real world choices, they must weight the decision with many factors. And of course it is easy to rationalise and tip the balance the way that favours yourself and your interests. But that just says people construct some belief about whether they are overall in the right or in the wrong. And having done that, by definition really, they pick what is for them the "right".

Talk of intentionally picking the course you know to be wrong doesn't sound coherent. You are really talking about people picking the course they know you would likely judge wrong - but they would rather see what they want to do as right.

So the point is that all such choices are already constructed to be defensible as "right". It should be no surprise that the wrong-doer starts with that general belief. It is only if you can appeal to something outside the person's private intentionality - like a social norm of what was the right action - that you then create some different standard other than the person's own freedom to construct their choices.

Unless you are arguing some absolute basis for morality, you are stuck with having to rely on social norms. And when it comes to apologies, even the law doesn't generally like getting involved in that.

If I were to crash my car into someone else's on accident, I would feel compelled to apologize even though I didn't do it on purpose. — darthbarracuda

Yeah, but that is then normally going to be a case of your negligence. So it isn't literally an accident - an act of God. It is culpable negligence.

If you are instead forced into the car in front of you by the car behind you, would you still feel as compelled? As a matter of form, you might say "sorry about that". But just as quickly, you would point out who was really to blame.

So your OP seemed to want a black and white absolute moral principle. But morality is normally pragmatic.

Apologies are a social tool. People use them to get away with stuff. Blame the accident, it wasn't me. And people demand them because they care about dominance hierarchies. They want someone who has attacked their social standing to humble themselves. But mostly apologies just grease the wheels and lower the potential for confrontations. They are a friendly habit where there is not enough at stake to want to risk a test of wills.

So I'm saying the OP seems to want some general metaphysical-strength position of the giving and withholding of apologies. But really, is there anything more going on here than social game-playing and norms of maturity? Apologies would be tools to use to your best advantage, whatever you judge that to be in a social situation.

So what would you actually do if you knocked over my mailbox? Would it depend on there being possible witnesses? — apokrisis

It has happened to me. I was turning around in someone's driveway and backed into it. They weren't home. I went back my home, got my tools, and did my best to fix the damage. Since they still weren't home, I left a note with my phone number.

The problem with real life is there are always extenuating circumstances. Right and wrong can never be so black and white. — apokrisis

I'm a bit shocked that you don't seem to understand. It's not that I'm to blame, it's that I'm responsible. I don't deserve punishment or censure, I'm obligated to make things right.

So now it is about property damage and adequate compensation?

Correct me if I’m wrong but the OP was about personal insult. If you hurt my feelings, you might want to show me that you are hurting just as much, and now we can be all square. Everyone equally happy in being equally unhappy. :)

So now it is about property damage and adequate compensation?

Correct me if I’m wrong but the OP was about personal insult. If you hurt my feelings, you might want to show me that you are hurting just as much, and now we can be all square. Everyone equally happy in being equally unhappy. — apokrisis

You're right, I wasn't thinking of the subject just in relation to an insult or hurt feelings, although I think what I had to say is still appropriate. Actually, it works better for emotional or personal failings than it does for more substantive ones. I know from experience, both as the victim and the perpetrator, that an acknowledgement of error and genuine attempt to set things straight are very powerful responses for people who are hurt emotionally.

That's what I wonder. Can people actually choose to do wrong? If they are making real world choices, they must weight the decision with many factors. And of course it is easy to rationalise and tip the balance the way that favours yourself and your interests. But that just says people construct some belief about whether they are overall in the right or in the wrong. And having done that, by definition really, they pick what is for them the "right".

Talk of intentionally picking the course you know to be wrong doesn't sound coherent. You are really talking about people picking the course they know you would likely judge wrong - but they would rather see what they want to do as right. — apokrisis

I don't agree with what I see to be your reduction of moral rightness/wrongness to subjective or inter-subjective opinions, or calling it "right" instead of right. You and I seem to be using different concepts here, as it is plain to me that choosing the course that is morally wrong is very much so possible and coherent and happens all the time, whereas you seem to be using it in the sense of prudential rationality, or weakness of will.

I'd be more interested in something like the ancient Greek notion that evil is born from ignorance. But that would lead us to the question of moral responsibility in general, and not just apologizing (but also punishment, justice, redemption, etc).

So your OP seemed to want a black and white absolute moral principle. But morality is normally pragmatic. — apokrisis

No, not at all, I explicitly reject any sort of black-and-white moral absolutism. At least, any sort of morality that can be cashed out in real life. But rejecting absolutism doesn't necessarily imply relativism or extreme particularism. We can certainly have prima facie principles and duties, which I think ultimately is what is the case. So the OP, far from asking for absolutes, is asking for general, "at first glance" moral principles. At first glance, when someone does something wrong, they ought to apologize regardless of their intentions. But this of course isn't an absolute. It's only a guideline for what tends to be the most appropriate thing to do.

Really, I'm less interested in the meta-ethics this time and more interested in actual normative ethics.

You may recall or have realized by now that I've chosen to largely ignore you, darth, but I can't help but comment on this thread. In our last PM conversation, I apologized several times for whatever part I may have played in the scuffle that led to our mutual estrangement a while back, while you failed to offer, and have still failed to offer, any apology yourself and didn't seem, nor seem now, to care about resolving the dispute in a way that might enable us to carry on discussing things with one another in a cordial manner. Your position in this thread is therefore highly ironic.

Shiiiit, you're still hung up on that? If I remember correctly I said I was going to be honest with you anyway. Do I need to apologize for being honest?

I'm not going to apologize for something I don't see as wrong. That would just be insincere of me, a sniffling apology to get back on someone's "good" side. I'll apologize when I think I actually did screw up and feel the other person deserves an apology.

I apologize if that was rude... /s

Edit: to an extent I come from a Levinasian stance, in which I experience a primordial demand to apologize to anyone and everyone simply for my very existence. I get in other people's way, interrupt their projects, irritate them, etc. Any sort of self-righteous indignation is a violence against the other person. So, I do feel a need to apologize to you, just as I feel the need to apologize to everyone. But from a broader, third-person perspective, as an impartial observer, I don't think someone else would agree that I should apologize for each and every thing I do.

I've been thinking about apology just lately and writing an essay about *public* apology - for which I heartily recommend Alice Maclachlan as a starting point.

http://www.alicemaclachlan.com/research.html

I'm feeling for myself, after some deliberation, that apology is part of a ritual or symbolic exchange. You make an apology when you believe that by such a speech act you will place yourself, and the person you're apologising to, in a better relation than your present mutual standing. That's it!

My other major source is Karine Polwart - a philosophy graduate who became a singer-songwriter. This is her song 'Sorry'.

I'm feeling for myself, after some deliberation, that apology is part of a ritual or symbolic exchange. You make an apology when you believe that by such a speech act you will place yourself, and the person you're apologising to, in a better relation than your present mutual standing. That's it! — mcdoodle

I agree that apologizing can put two people on higher mutual standing with each other. But I will say that apologizing only to get to a better standing with another person is insincere, even manipulative. You should apologize first and foremost when you have done something wrong and the other person deserves to be supplicated to. Sincere apologizing is an act of humble submission - you put yourself at the mercy of the other person, and they can either reject or accept your apology.

Schopenhauerians ought to stick together, you know.

you're still hung up on that? — darthbarracuda

I'm not hung up on it. I hadn't thought about it at all until I saw this thread and noticed the irony.

I'll apologize when I think I actually did screw up and feel the other person deserves an apology. — darthbarracuda

I attempted to show that you did, in fact, screw up, but you abandoned the conversation and to this day have made no attempts to reconcile our relationship. I don't care if it is or isn't, I'm just pointing this out to you.

I don't care if it is or isn't, I'm just pointing this out to you. — Thorongil

Either you're lying about not caring, or your intent is to create drama. Why, though?

I don't agree with what I see to be your reduction of moral rightness/wrongness to subjective or inter-subjective opinions — darthbarracuda

But I wasn't. I was pointing out that you look to be claiming that the personally subjective has an objective basis here. I say the nearest to any objective basis is the prevailing social norm of which an apology would be a token of recognition.

So whether you feel you are really in the right, or really in the wrong, is not really relevant to the norm. Social circumstance rules whether apologies are required or not.

But then apologies have a social function. They mend hurt feelings. They bring people together where otherwise they might be pushed apart. So - from a personal perspective - you would use them to your own best advantage, depending on what you want from a social situation.

The fact that there is a norm, and that you can then choose whether or not to conform, gets you into other social games - like those of status hierarchies. You can make rational decisions about whether you want to be the assertive/non-apologetic one, or the submissive/apologise for your very existence one.

So we just keep moving further away from any personal absolute necessity to apologise or not. There are layers of quite normal social gaming involved. The existence of a norm becomes the basis for playing with that norm. Not apologising gains a secondary meaning.

In any human interaction, there is you, me, and the group. The good old Peircean semiotic triad. Apologies then serve as part of the symbolic currency of our social interaction. They are a way to trade status and salve hurt status feelings. And I can then show you which social group I am part of, which I think you are part of, depending on which group's norms I apply, and whether I feel they extend to cover you.

I guess you don't see it in these pragmatic micro-social terms as modern western society stresses a social style in which social norms are as abstracted as possible - made an impersonal moral code secured, if need be, as enforceable law. And that approach to running society then needs every individual to act as a rational moral agent. There just is a rule to cover all occasions. We are all forced into the one social group and meant to be equal, so there should be a rather black and white story about when apologies are either necessary or not required.

But how ideal is that socially constructed ideal? Maybe it is good, maybe it is bland, maybe it is a rule for fools, or the basis of a modern civil society. That at least seems the proper level at which to be addressing the "moral" question implied in the OP.

I'm feeling for myself, after some deliberation, that apology is part of a ritual or symbolic exchange. — mcdoodle

Yep.

But I will say that apologizing only to get to a better standing with another person is insincere, even manipulative. — darthbarracuda

Or normal social behaviour. What you call manipulation is merely rational social strategy surely?

Again, either morality has some socially-transcendent reality or it just is simply that which enables society to exist in a functional fashion.

If you believe that morality is socially transcendent, then I can see how you would feel an individual, as a perfect moral agent, would have to be "true to themselves" by being "true to the morally absolute" ... so far as they discover that within their own (not at all socially derived) belief system. :)

But if morality is about collective social goals, then we instead hope that mature individuals are rational game players. They don't merely just follow norms blindly, nor ignore them selfishly, but play the social games creatively and strategically.

Either you're lying about not caring, or your intent is to create drama. — darthbarracuda

Neither is true. Either you're blinded by your own self-importance or your intent is to create drama. I haven't cared or thought one iota about you since I sent that last PM, the proof of which being that I haven't really interacted with you at all since then, judging it to be a waste of time in light of the incident that occurred. I'm doing so now because it seems especially relevant. I will resume not caring after this conversation is over, assuming, like last time, we are unable to reconcile. If that doesn't interest you, that's perfectly fine by me.

I'm doing so now because it seems especially relevant. — Thorongil

How is it relevant, though? You actually said you brought it up because you thought it was ironic.

How is it relevant, though? You actually said you brought it up because you thought it was ironic. — darthbarracuda

Right, that's why it was relevant.

But if morality is about collective social goals, then we instead hope that mature individuals are rational game players. They don't merely just follow norms blindly, nor ignore them selfishly, but play the social games creatively and strategically. — apokrisis

I don't see how we can't have both. Morality as socially-transcendent yet moral agents maneuvering in creative and strategic ways. There's nothing incoherent from what I can tell with the notion that there is an actual transcendent morality but it's muddled and "gray" in the colloquial way of looking at it.

Right, that's why it was relevant. — Thorongil

No, that's not relevant. This is a philosophical discussion, not a place for you to mention private interactions and relish in the apparent irony.