Apologies

This paper advances the following criticisms against the received view of implicatures: (1) implicatures are relations of pragmatic implication and not attempts to convey particular speaker meanings; (2) conversational implicatures are non-cancellable; (3) generalised conversational implicatures and conventional implicatures are necessary to preserve the cooperative assumption employing a conversational maxim of conveyability; (4) implicatures should be divided into utterance implicatures and assumption implicatures, not speaker implicatures and sentence implicatures; (5) trivial implicatures are genuine implicatures; (6) Grice’s theory of conversation cannot (...) explain most of his examples of particularised conversational implicatures; (7) the apparent attempts of explicit cancellation of implicatures are apologies, not attempts to avoid misunderstandings. (shrink)

Penance is often said to be a part of the process of making amends for wrongdoing. Here I clarify the nature of penance as a remedial action, highlighting the differences between it and more familiar corrective actions such as reparation and apology, and I offer an account of how penance contributes to the expiation of wrongdoing. In doing so, I reject a popular view according to which one does penance primarily by either punishing oneself or voluntarily submitting to punishment at (...) the hands of others. I contend that non‐punitive actions such gifts or acts of service are typically more conducive to achieving the reparative aims of penance. (shrink)

Much attention has been paid to moral understanding as an individual achievement, when a single agent gains insight into distinctly moral matters. Crucially overlooked, I argue, is the phenomenon of shared moral understanding, when you and I understand moral matters together, in a way that can’t be reduced to each of us having moral understanding on our own. My argument pays close attention to two central moral practices: justifying our actions to others, and apologizing for wrongdoing. I argue that, whenever (...) I owe you a justification or an apology, I thereby owe it to you to aim at our coming to a shared moral understanding. My argument has two upshots. The first is a novel explanation of the importance of moral understanding in our lives, one that emphasizes the importance of understanding moral reasons together. The second is a better understanding of the very obligations involved in two of our most central interpersonal moral practices. (shrink)

According to an influential view about directed expressive duties (e.g., duties to express gratitude to benefactors, remorse to victims, forgiveness to wrongdoers), these duties do not have rights as their correlates, because they are not demandable and enforceable. The chapter argues that this view is mistaken. Like other directed duties, directed expressive duties are demandable and enforceable. While this does not entail that these duties have rights as their correlates, it does create a strong presumption of this being the case. (...) This shifts the burden of proof from those who hold that expressive duties correlate with rights to those who deny it. (shrink)

The literature on reparative justice focuses for the most part on the grounds and limits of wrongdoers' duties to their victims. An interesting but relatively neglected question is that of what - if anything - victims owe to wrongdoers. In this paper, I argue that victims are under a duty to accept wrongdoers' apologies. To accept an apology is to form the belief that the wrongdoer's apologetic utterance or gesture has the requisite verdictive, commissive and expressive dimensions; to communicate as (...) much to him; and to recognise that his apology changes one's normative status in relation to him, and to comport oneself accordingly. I then offer a Kantian argument for the duty to accept and qualify that argument in the light of some hard cases. I end the paper by addressing the objection that victims do not owe it to wrongdoers to engage in any form of reparative encounter. (shrink)

Apology An apology is the act of declaring one’s regret, remorse, or sorrow for having insulted, failed, injured, harmed or wronged another. Some apologies are interpersonal (between individuals, that is, between friends, family members, colleagues, lovers, neighbours, or strangers). Other apologies are collective (by one group to another group or by a group to an […].

The problem of dirty hands is, roughly speaking, concerned with situations in which an agent is faced with a choice between two evils so that, no matter what they do, they will have to violate something of important moral value. Theorists have been primarily concerned with dirty hands choices arising in politics because they are thought to be particularly frequent and pressing in this sphere. Much of the subsequent discussion in the literature has focused on the impact that such choices (...) have on a well-functioning democracy and how, if at all, we can ensure that a politician dirtying their hands does not undermine core democratic values and processes. A particular concern has been whether dirty-handed politicians ought to publicly reveal their actions after the fact and whether they should be held accountable through some form of punishment. The first aim of this paper is to point out that the focus on what is required in the wake of a dirty-handed decision, based on the need to protect the democratic system ought to be balanced with a genuine concern for reparative justice and what is owed to the victims of dirty hands. In the second part of this paper, I then examine the suitability of one common way in which perpetrators partly repair the damage they have done to victims, namely apologizing, in the dirty hands context. (shrink)

American media is very quick to ask victims of anti-Black violence if they forgive their victimizers. The media’s nearly reflexive framing is a symptom of the broader, cultural demand that Black victims grant forgiveness for racist violence. Reading Juliet Hooker and Myisha Cherry, this paper links the current preponderance of such demand for forgiveness to a demand for apology in America’s lynching tradition. Drawing from Sonya Renee Taylor, Ida B. Wells, and Frederick Douglass, I give a history to both kinds (...) of normative demands and show how, though they appear as seem­ing contraries, demands for forgiveness and apology function together as methods of anti-Black violence. I then draw from work in transformative justice to differentiate the perspectives of asking, giving, and demanding forgiveness. When understood through the perspective of victims, a certain kind of embodied forgiveness can have liberatory potential. However, observers’ demands for forgiveness too often function as a method of racial oppression. (shrink)

In this paper, I first consider three possible explanations for why celebrities typically apologise publicly and sometimes also include their fans among the targets of their apology. I then identify three moral dangers of celebrity apologies, the third of which arises specifically for fan-targeted apologies, and each of which teaches us important lessons about the practice of celebrity apologies. From these individual lessons, I draw more general lessons about apologies from those with elevated social positions and the powers they are (...) associated with. (shrink)

This chapter reflects on public apologies as means of moral repair by considering the various roles the public might play in these moral dramas. Audiences to public apologies include people who are related to the transgression in different ways. This chapter focuses on those parties in front of whom public apologies are intentionally performed but who are neither victims nor wrongdoers. Do such third parties add something of value to the apology? If so, how? How might they play their role (...) well? Under what circumstances might they forgive? How might things go poorly? This chapter argues that public apologies face a problem of “mission creep.”. (shrink)

Gaining a high level of proficiency is the ultimate aspiration of all language learners, and the use of apology and politeness strategies is consistently associated with the levels of language proficiency. Owing to the significance of speech acts, politeness strategies, and level of proficiency, this study aimed to investigate the realization of apology speech acts and politeness strategies among Iranian EFL learners to examine and compare the lower-intermediate and advanced learners’ use of apology and politeness strategies. To achieve this goal, (...) 320 learners were selected out of 390 EFL learners who took a test of English language proficiency and were then divided into lower-intermediate and advanced levels. The findings of the study revealed significant differences between lower-intermediate and advanced Iranian EFL learners in the realization of the speech act of apology and politeness strategies. Advanced learners preferred to use more indirect and complicated forms of apology speech acts and tended to apply negative politeness and off-record strategies more than the lower-intermediate learners did. However, lower-intermediate learners preferred to use simple and more direct forms of apology and politeness strategies. It can be concluded that as learners increase their knowledge in the target language, and as their interlanguages get closer to the target language, they tend to apply more complicated and native-like speech acts and strategies . (shrink)

What is it to take responsibility for a moral failure? This chapter investigates taking responsibility for wrongdoing. It starts by considering a prominent view in the literature: that to take responsibility for a wrong is to blame oneself for it. Contrary to the self-blame account, it is argued that taking responsibility and self-blame can come apart in various ways. Instead, the normative footprint account is defended. It is suggested that wrongdoing changes the normative landscape in systematic ways: it can create (...) duties to apologize, to acknowledge the wrong done, to make amends, to respond to the wronged party’s upset. To take responsibility for a wrong is to own the normative consequences of one’s wrong. (shrink)

Many theorists assume that a request is sincere if the speaker wants the addressee to perform the act requested. I argue that this assumption predicts an implausible mismatch between sincere assertions and sincere directives and needs to be revised. I present an alternative view, according to which directive utterances can only be sincere if they are self-directed. Other-directed directives, however, can be genuine or fake, depending on whether the speaker wants the addressee to perform the act in question. Finally, I (...) argue that this new perspective opens the door to a satisfying theory of authentic expression, for both assertive and directive utterances. Authenticity consists in the combination of genuine and sincere speech, for example, in the case of assertion, when speakers assert something which they both believe (sincerity) and want the addressee to believe (genuineness). (shrink)

When A wrongs B while C observes, or when B tells C afterward, C might apologize. This could seem to be an imprecise or merely metaphorical use of the word ‘apology’ to refer to an expression of sympathy. But this short paper explains how third-party apologies function as apologies (they restore respect to B, the victim, that was undermined by the wrongdoer A); it explains why such an apology could be morally necessary on C's part; and it provides a preliminary (...) account of the components of a third-party apology. (shrink)

This article treats rituals of apology and reconciliation as responses to social discontent, specifically to expressions of anger and resentment. A standard account of social discontent, found both in the literature on transitional justice and in the social theory of Axel Honneth, has it that these emotional expressions are evidence of an underlying psychic need for recognition. In this framework, the appropriate response to expressions of anger and discontent is a recognitive one that includes victims of injustice in the political (...) community by showing them that they are valued members. In the aftermath of injustices, such recognitive responses are thought to include acknowledgments of victim suffering, reconciliatory gestures, and rituals of contrition. I will argue, against this narrative, that treating victim anger as evidence of an underlying need for recognition threatens to depoliticize emotional responses to injustice by treating them as symptoms of psychic injuries instead of intelligible political claims. Discussing mainly the Canadian Truth and Reconciliation process set up to deal with the history of the Indian Residential School system, I show how rituals of reconciliation and apology, in the context of settler-colonial states and neoliberal politics, serve as a biopolitical management of “bad” emotions. This will serve as a critique both of the politics of reconciliation and of social–theoretic approaches that treat expressions of discontent exclusively through a lens of recognition. Instead, I argue, in politics as well as theory, we need to engage with emotional expressions as intelligible political claims that exceed the psychic need for recognition. (shrink)

Based on real-life intergroup animosities originating from a historical conflict, the current study examined how the perceived stance of the outgroup about the conflict affects the dehumanization of the outgroup. In Study 1, Korean undergraduates attributed more human nature to the Japanese after reading an article that the Japanese government did issue an official apology for a historical wrong. In turn, the more human nature assigned to the Japanese predicted higher expectations about positive mutual relations in the future. Similarly, in (...) Study 2, Japanese undergraduates attributed more human uniqueness to Koreans after reading an article that an official apology for a historical wrong from Japan was accepted by Koreans. The higher the perceived human uniqueness of Koreans was, the higher were the willingness to help and the expectations of a positive relationship in the future. The findings demonstrate how mutual dehumanization can be reduced as a result of the other side’s reconciliatory stances and can further contribute to improving intergroup relations. (shrink)

Abstract: We live in the age of apology, particularly the age of collective apology. Here, I focus specifically on collective state apologies. In these apologies, political leaders apologize on behalf of an entire collective to another collective, often a racial or ethnic minority. Cynicism and skepticism arise on whether these apologies are morally legitimate. Here, moral legitimacy entails that an apology deserves to be given the authority, seriousness, and consideration that interpersonal apologies usually demand. In this paper, I respond to (...) two groups that doubt the moral legitimacy of such apologies, namely political-realists and moral-individualists. Ultimately, I argue that collective state apologies can be morally legitimate. Political-realists are wrong to think that sincerity is necessary or sufficient for moral legitimacy. Moral-individualists overmoralize the role of the individual to the point of “hyperindividualism.” I end by proposing that at least democratically elected leaders have standing to apologize on behalf of their constituents. (shrink)

Usually, apologies are made by using non-conditional utterances: “I apologize for ruining your evening!” Very little, if any, attention has been given so far to conditional apologies which typically use utterances such as “If I have ruined your evening, I apologize!” This paper argues that such conditional utterances can constitute genuine apologies and play important moral roles in situations of uncertainty. It also proposes a closer analysis of such conditional apologies and contrasts them with unconditional apologies.

This book argues that justice often governs apologies. Drawing on examples from literature, politics, and current events, Cohen presents a theory of apology as corrective offers. Many leading accounts of apology say much about what apologies do and why they are important. They stop short of exploring whether and how justice governs apologies. Cohen argues that corrective justice may require apologies as offers of reparation. Individuals, corporations, and states may then have rights or duties regarding apology. Exercising rights to apology (...) or fulfilling duties to provide them are ways of holding one another mutually accountable. By casting rights and duties of apology as justifiable to free and equal persons, the book advances conversations about how liberalism may respond to historic injustice. Apologies and Moral Repair will be of interest to scholars and advanced students in ethics, political philosophy, and social philosophy. (shrink)

Using forgiveness theory, we investigated the effects of organizational apology and restitution on eliciting forgiveness of a transgressing organization after transactional psychological contract breach. Forgiveness theory proposes that victims are more likely to forgive offenders when victims’ positive offender-oriented emotions replace negative ones. Three pre-post laboratory experiments, using vignettes about a broken promise of financial aid, found that while apology-alone and restitution-alone each increased likelihood of forgiving, restitution-alone was the more effective of the two responses. When combined with an apology, (...) restitution boosted the effect of apology-alone. However, restitution was unnecessary if positive emotions replaced negative ones; third-party blame accomplished this negative-to-positive emotion replacement. Consistent with forgiveness theory, offender-oriented negative-to-positive emotion replacement partially mediated all effects, and negative emotion reductions were strongly correlated with positive emotion gains. We discuss implications for the repair of damaged norms and relationships within an organizational community. These include reparative effects of apology and restitution, dual-process conceptions of violation and repair, repair after psychological contract breach, and emotion replacement models of forgiveness. (shrink)

In a crisis, managers are confronted with a dilemma between their ethical responsibility to respond to victims and their fiduciary responsibility to protect shareholder value. In this study, we use a unique and comprehensive dataset of 223 non-financial crises between 1983 and 2013 to investigate how corporate apologies affect stock prices. Our empirical evidence shows that the stock price response from apologizing depends on the firm’s level of responsibility for the crisis. We find that to protect shareholder value, management needs (...) to match its formal response strategy with the degree of its responsibility for the crisis. Further, failing to match the proper response is harmful to shareholders: Both apologizing when the firm is not directly responsible for the crisis and failing to apologize when the firm is directly responsible reduce shareholder wealth. However, apologizing for a crisis when the firm is directly responsible mitigates losses to shareholder value that arise because of the crisis, as does refraining from apologizing when the firm is not directly responsible. (shrink)

Risk decisions often appear unsatisfactory after a calamity has taken place. This holds even when they are products of systematic risk analysis. Yet, if relevant considerations available to be known pre-accident were adequately taken into account and safety measures implemented accordingly, nobody seems morally blameworthy. In this paper, I advance a two-way argument. Firstly, I show how analysis of post-accident apologizing sheds new light on vexed tensions in ethical assessment of risk impositions. This amounts to exposing conflicting moral intuitions in (...) risk decisions, discussing problematic tenets in risk analysis as well as outlining three lines of arguments that destabilize the very notion of correct risk analysis. The analysis indicates that bringing different discussions of moral blameworthiness together facilitates resolving the tensions. It also calls for further and early-on collaboration between risk theorists and ethicists in order to carry these insights to risk analysis. Secondly, I argue that analysis of risk decisions, in part, reveals a discrepancy between the definitional work done on apology and what is required by ethics. Virtually every suggestion for the gold standard for apology involves moral blameworthiness as a necessary condition. I highlight different kinds of cases in which nobody is culpable, but an apology can be morally fitting or required. It would be nonsensical to say that, in these cases, one ought to apologize, but in a disingenuous manner. (shrink)

Christian ethicists rarely study apology or forgiveness about climate change, possibly because it is just another sin that God may forgive. Yet apology between humans may be critical to avoiding paralysis after people realize the horror of their actions and enabling cooperative responses to climate change among its perpetrators and victims. Climate change challenges traditional ideas and practices of apology because it involves unintentional, ongoing acts of diffuse collectives that harm other diffuse collectives across space and time. Developing concepts of (...) collective agency and responsibility enable a reconceptualization of apology for an era of climate change. While more work is needed to understand and implement such ideas, this paper lays the groundwork for future studies of collective apology and forgiveness by identifying general features of climate apologies including their symbolic dimensions and connection to ongoing changed actions. (shrink)

This book provides rigorous but accessible scholarship, ideal for students in philosophy and public policy. It includes twelve original essays by world-renowned scholars, each examining a key topic in philosophy and public policy and demonstrating how policy debates can be advanced by employing the tools and concepts of philosophy.

Bernard Williams briefly discusses agent regret in his broader account of moral luck. The present paper first outlines one way to develop Williams’s notion with reference to the unintended harm; it then suggests that agent regret can be counteracted by externalizing the action that caused unintended harm, in Harry Frankfurt’s sense of externalization; and then the present paper argues that apology is a mechanism by which a person can externalize an offending action/effect—in that way counteracting agent regret. This function for (...) apology—self-repair—is different from others described in the literature, which address the role of apology in repairing relationships. The present paper describes a nonfictional example, that of a veteran of the U.S. war in Iraq who contacts a family gravely injured by him and his combat unit; the veteran is motivated to contact the family to apologize. The example serves as a prototypical case of agent regret. The example is taken from a recent literature on the clinical psychology of self-inflicted “moral injury”; categorizing this example of moral injury as agent regret also helps broaden our understanding of moral injury as a philosophical category and as a psychological phenomenon. (shrink)

Apologies are key components of moral repair. They can identify a wrong, express regret, and accept culpability for some transgression. Apologies can vindicate a victim's value as someone who was due different treatment. This paper explores whether acts with vicarious elements may serve as apologies. I offer a functionalist account of apologies: acts are apologies not so much by having correct ingredients but by serving certain apologetic functions. Those functions can be realized in multiple ways. Whether the offenders are individuals (...) or collectives, they can sometimes fulfill such functions through third party agents. Having vicarious elements does not necessarily undermine the reparative reasons offenders hope to provide. (shrink)

Within Alberta Health Services, the Alberta Provincial Patient Relations Department employs Patient Relations Consultants to assist unsatisfied patients, investigate healthcare related concerns, and facilitate resolution. The patients, who are referred to as complainants, interpret their experience and come forward with their complaint; the PRC is responsible to then interpret the complaint and take it forward for redress. In doing so, offering complainants an apology is unavoidable. Patient relations is an interpretive practice, however, and there are shortcomings when apology is inserted (...) into the conversation. In this article, I deconstruct apology from a patient relations perspective. I draw upon concepts in Richard Kearney’s Strangers, Gods and Monsters, as well as the work of Hans-Georg Gadamer and Jacques Derrida, to present an interpretive account of how the hospital is a host to strangers, and to patients. Following an unsatisfactory experience or adverse event, the patients become complainants, or monsters. The PRCs, who are also considered hosts, receive the monsters at their door and, in turn, they can become hostages to the monsters. In attempting to achieve “otherness” with the “monsters,” the phenomenon of apology is examined. (shrink)

This paper considers the relation of corrective to distributive justice. I discuss the shortfalls of one sort of account that holds these are independent domains of justice. To support a more modest claim that these are sometimes independent domains of justice, I focus instead on the case of apologies. Apologies are sometimes among the measures specified by corrective justice. I argue that the sorts of injustices that apologies can help to correct need not always be departures from ideals specified by (...) distributive justice. Apologies and the moral relations they engage might thus be parts of a domain of justice that is neither distributive nor dependent on distributive justice. (shrink)

This book inquires into the role and effects of public apologies in international relations. It focuses on two major questions - why and when do states issue apologies for historic crimes and how and under what conditions are these apologies successful in remedying conflictive relationships? In recent years, we have witnessed an unseen popularity of apologies, particularly in the public sphere, with numerous politicians, managers and clergymen being eager to apologise and atone for the wrong-doings of their countries or institutions. (...) The pope, for instance, has apologized for the Inquisition, the United Nations have apologized for their idleness during the Rwandan civil war and US President Bill Clinton has apologized for slavery, to mention just a few examples. Public apologies, thus, are a new and highly interesting, while nevertheless still puzzling phenomenon, the precise role and meaning of which in international politics remains to be explored. This book sets out to do exactly this. Focusing in particular on state apologies, i.e. apologies which are given and/or demanded by states, it assembles twelve detailed empirical case studies which deal with the two questions raised above. In a first part, the case studies reconstruct the processes in which state representatives react to calls for public atonement by either issuing a public apology or refusing to do so. In a second part, the case studies explore the reactions to the apology (in cases where an apology was given) and evaluate signs for its success or failure. All case studies are based on a theoretical framework which is outlined in the introduction to the book and help develop tentative assumptions about the emergence and the effects of state apologies, drawing on different strands of literature, such as political science, philosophy, sociology or psychology. This work will be of great interest to students and scholars of conflict reconciliation, international relations and transitional justice. (shrink)

What, if anything, gives us the right to ask the victim of our wrongdoing for forgiveness? After some conceptual clarifications, I attempt to lay open a paradoxical structure in apologies. Apologies are made in a spirit of humility: if the offender recognizes his guilt, he will see the victim᾽s negative emotions towards him as proper and justified. Nevertheless, by begging for forgiveness, he tries to change the victim᾽s negative feelings towards him. Thus, by apologizing, the offender tries to bring about (...) a state of affairs which, if genuinely repentant and remorseful, he has no reason to want to bring about. In what follows, I examine various attempts to dissolve this paradox. These include offering reasons for apologies that are independent of our wish to alter the victim᾽s feeling of resentment and construing apologies as expressive or as mixed speech acts. All of these attempts, or so I argue, fail. Some of them fail to provide justificatory reasons for asking for forgiveness, others fall short of explaining why apologies can be accepted or rejected, still others cannot give a convincing account of the relation between remorse and asking for forgiveness or fail to distinguish between redressing a harm and redressing a moral wrong. The upshot of the argument is that an offender who recognizes his own guilt has no rational reason for asking for forgiveness. In many cases, not offering one᾽s apologies is a sign of taking guilt seriously. (shrink)

This paper discusses apologies made by politicians at a recent UK public inquiry, the Leveson Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press. I use the freely available data from the Inquiry to explore how politicians apologise in this interactional setting, contrasting it with more usual monologic political apologies. Firstly, I identify the sorts of actions which may be seen as apologisable. I then take a conversation analytic approach to explore how the apologies can come as a result (...) of an overt complaint and how the apologies are reacted to by counsel and the Inquiry chair. I show that, unlike in everyday conversation, apologies are not the first pair parts of adjacency pairs, but rather form action chains where the absence of a response is unmarked. I conclude with some observations on how apology tokens may be losing their apologetic meaning. (shrink)

Apologies are morally significant with regard to their form, function, and freight. Nevertheless, little work in Christian ethics considers apologies. Philosophical and social scientific literature on apologies focuses on the conditions for making valid apologies and the efficacy of apologies in moral repair but ignores the import of apologies for the offender. This literature is ill equipped to specify the relation between persons and their moral failures, minimizes the difficulty of understanding our own moral failure, does not adequately treat the (...) relationship between explanation and apology, and neglects the way that apology making may comprise a process of moral repair for the offender. Relevant resources in Christian moral tradition can inform and enrich ethical consideration of apologies. (shrink)

This article is the first exploration of the Chinese notion of apology from a comparative legal perspective. By reviewing the significance of apology in the context of Chinese culture, the article presents a three-dimensional structure of apology that, in contrast to the understanding the research community now has, defines acknowledgement of fault, admission of responsibility, and offer of reparation as three essential elements of an apology. It is the combination of these three elements that enables apology to serve as a (...) form of reparation. The article further places the three-dimensional apology in the context of the Chinese concept of “the relations of humanity,” arguing that an apology accompanying admission of fault and responsibility may help to restore the harmony of relations and, by so doing, resolve medical disputes positively. (shrink)

Recognizing gaps in our present understanding of leader apologies, this investigation examines how followers appraise leader apologies and how these perceptions impact work-related outcomes. Results indicate that followers who viewed their leader as trustworthy or caring before a leader wrongdoing were more likely to perceive their leader’s apology to be sincere, as compared to followers who previously doubted their leader’s trustworthiness and caring. Attributions of apology sincerity affected follower reactions, with followers perceiving sincere apologies reporting greater trust in leadership, satisfaction (...) with supervision, leader–member exchange quality, affective organizational commitment, and forgiveness than those reporting insincere or no apologies. A mediation model was supported, showing that attributions of apology sincerity fostered perceptions of humility, which enhanced perceptions of transformational leadership, and consequently garnered more positive follower reactions. (shrink)

Regardless of leaders’ efforts to do the right thing and meet performance expectations, they make mistakes, with possible ramifications for followers’ and leaders’ well-being. Some leaders will apologize following transgressions, which may have positive implications for their followers’ and their own well-being, contingent upon the nature and severity of the transgressions. We examine these relationships in two separate studies. In Study 1, leader apologies had a positive relationship with followers’ psychological well-being and emotional health, and these relationships were moderated by (...) the severity of the transgression. In Study 2, leader apologies had a positive relationship with their own psychological well-being, positive emotional health and authentic pride. In addition, the nature of transgressions moderated the relationship between leader apologies and leaders’ positive emotions and authentic pride, while the severity of transgressions moderated the relationship between leader apologies and their positive emotions, psychological health, and authentic pride. Implications and future research directions are discussed. (shrink)

In 2000, the Institute of Medicine published “To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System,” a report on the woeful state of patient safety in American hospitals.1 This alarming study not only forced the medical establishment to acknowledge the extent and consequences of human error; it spurred states to look for ways to better protect their citizens from medical mistakes. One intriguing suggestion was to allow healthcare providers to own up to those mistakes. Conflict resolution scholars, hospital administrators, and (...) state governments agreed that if errors could be discussed in the open, they could be freely and thoroughly analyzed. Such transparency might expose the reasons for the mistakes, which could lead to prevention strategies. Traditionally, medical error is dealt with in the courts, and the threat of litigation serves as a deterrent to doctors. The new, post–IOM report suggestion also involved the legal system, but in this case it didn’t include the courts hearing malpractice cases but rather state legislatures granting immunity to certain expressions of apology by statute. This new approach was implemented in 2003, when Colorado enacted the country’s first “apology inadmissibility law.” Other states soon followed suit. The new laws were designed to reduce medical error and malpractice litigation, but bioethicists hailed them too. Bioethicists hoped that the apology laws, even in the wake of adverse outcomes, could serve to maintain the continuity of care that is part of humane medical attention. An atmosphere in which physicians could openly admit mistakes, express condolences, and perhaps discuss reparations without fear of being sued would mean patients or their families wouldn’t have to go to court to discover what had gone wrong with their loved ones’ medical treatments. The doctor could preserve his own dignity and autonomy as well, by honoring his professional and ethical mandates to act in his patient’s best interests. Bioethicists saw in state apology laws a chance to prevent the devolution of the relationship of doctor-patient into that of defendant-plaintiff. Yet despite state efforts to protect doctors, the moral promise of the apology laws was never fulfilled. To the contrary, as a review of the laws reveals, the doctor-patient relationship couldn’t be a concern of the apology statutes because of the way the statutes were crafted in the first place. • “A pivotal development in American legal and medical practices may have occurred quietly in Colorado last year,” wrote Jonathan Cohen, a law professor and dispute resolution scholar, in spring of 2004. “It took the form of a change in Colorado’s evidence code.”2 Cohen was writing about CRS §13-25-135: Colorado Law Governing Apology for Unanticipated Outcome in Medical-Legal Proce[e]ding,3 the country’s first “apology inadmissibility law.” The practice caught on, and, by mid-2013, 37 states and the District of Columbia had enacted some form of apology inadmissibility law.5 Although all of them provide protection for simple expressions of sympathy, most of the statutes specify to whom the expressions can be made. In addition to defining what is inadmissible as evidence, the laws dictate what the apologies or benevolent gestures can “relate to.” For instance, 14 states protect expressions of sympathy only if they spring from cases in which there’s been an “unanticipated outcome” during medical care. Five states allow expressions of sympathy only if an adverse outcome is the result of an accident. Hawaii protects expressions of sympathy when the sympathizer is a participant in the event that elicited the expression, and Iowa exempts statements of condolence or compassion for cases in which the adverse outcome results from a breach in the “applicable standard of care.” A few statutes impose interesting additional qualifications. West Virginia’s inadmissibility law is restricted to “civil action, including arbitration, mediation, or alternative dispute resolution proceeding”. Texas’s law requires that expressions of compassion or commiseration “emanat[e] from humane impulses…or a general sense of benevolence” but adds that a “communication including an excited utterance as defined by Rule 803 of the Texas Rules of Evidence, which also includes a statement or statements concerning negligible or culpable conduct pertaining to an accident or event, is admissible to prove liability of the communicator.” The breadth and variety of restrictions and qualifications to the laws reflect the diligence that went into drafting them. Yet for bioethicists who had hoped that apology laws would benefit the doctor-patient relationship by removing the threat of litigation, the upshot of the laws has been disappointing. They remain focused on reducing the exposure of states and their medical institutions to civil action and potential penalties; instead of including the doctor-patient relationship within the scope of the legislation, the laws have achieved the opposite. Bioethicists interested in the ethical implications of apology laws will be alarmed to learn that fewer than a quarter of the statutes allow physicians to take responsibility for their actions: For an apology to be sincere, after all, it must include both the transgressor’s acknowledgement of wrongdoing and an expression of remorse. Without an admission of fault or other recognition of responsibility for error, an apology is incomplete—it’s more like a politician’s acknowledgment that “mistakes were made.” Critics of apology laws have noticed that the apologies protected by the statutes are neither sincere nor complete. Ethicist and lawyer Lee Taft wrote “Apology Within a Dialectic” in reply to an empirical study of the role of apology in legal settlements.7 He takes issue with the notion of legislating apology at all, precisely because the laws can lead to incomplete, insincere expressions. He believes utility to be the real motivation behind the inadmissibility laws, and thus they’re liable to discount the crucial, moral component of a sincere apology. Even if apology laws are proven to reduce malpractice cases, Taft maintains, and even if they improve patient safety, they would still fail to “adequately address the moral harm of legislative protection for apology.”8 Put another way, the “efficacy of apology is not dependent on its admissibility [in court].”9 Rebecca Dresser agrees, writing in “The Limits of Apology Laws” that inadmissibility statutes “will achieve a positive ethical outcome only if they are accompanied by full disclosure and fair compensation.”10 Apologies that don’t include admissions of fault are also one-sided. By failing to own up to his role in causing harm, the transgressor fails to acknowledge the victim’s moral status in the equation. Without that acknowledgement, the harmed party is little more than the passive recipient of legally approved remorse. On the American Medical Association’s chart of state inadmissibility laws, patients or their families are there to receive legislated expressions; they play no active role in the process.11 Nancy Berlinger is thinking in this vein in “Avoiding Cheap Grace: Medical Harm, Patient Safety, and the Culture of Forgiveness.” She writes that, in partial apologies, the injured party is “pushed out of the frame, while the person who has made the error is forgiven without any assurance that the relational actions traditionally described as confession and repentance have taken or will take place.”12 For Berlinger, a partial apology is one in which forgiveness is not sought by the transgressor but is instead bestowed upon himself by himself. This conception is notable for its absence of moral consideration of the injured party. On more practical grounds, writes law professor Anna Mastroianni and colleagues in their survey of the impact of apology laws on malpractice litigation, “lawsuits that protect only expressions of sympathy and explanation may make for awkward communications, as it may be difficult to explain an error without discussing the different but closely related issues of responsibility and fault.”13 To the bioethicist, then, the more than 75 percent of apology inadmissibility laws currently on the books are not about apology at all, but rather a circumscribed notion of it. • If most apology inadmissibility laws aren’t really about apology, then they must be about something else. One reasonable candidate would be the continued protection from civil action for adverse medical outcomes that result from physician error. So even though the apology legislation movement gained momentum after the IOM report, the way the laws have been written indicates that the move to shield expressions of physician mea culpas was never sparked by concern for patient safety to begin with. Instead, the laws seem to exist to better protect medical providers from legal exposure at very little expense. Taft agrees that apology laws are more about lawsuits and less about encouraging an honest dialogue between doctor and patient. He takes issue especially with the idea that an adversarial legal system can be retrofitted to both reduce malpractice suits and accommodate a moral relationship like that of doctor and patient, writing that the “risk of subversion arises whenever we transcribe moral processes into systems that are primarily adversarial.…15 This harm rises dramatically when one extracts components of moral processes and inserts them into utilitarian schemas”16—such as those designed to improve patient outcomes and reduce instances of malpractice suits. Flauren Fagadau Bender, an attorney specializing in health law, advises physicians who are thinking about extending apologies to patients to check with an attorney first.17 That is, before a doctor decides to act in accordance with a law that was created expressly to encourage him to act without fear of being sued, he first should run his decision by Legal. The undercurrent of the ethical objections to inadmissibility laws is the simple fact that when a physician inadvertently injures a patient, he harms someone with whom he has created a uniquely intimate relationship. The physically and emotionally vulnerable patient entrusts her well-being to her doctor. If he harms her, and chooses to override his humane impulse to apologize in favor of checking first to see if such an apology comports with his institution’s legal protocol under state law, he withdraws from his relationship with her; he has turned his attention to his own needs rather than his patient’s. His concern now is with his new role as potential respondent to litigation. With this shift in priority, the doctor has effectively abandoned his patient. • Of course, state lawmakers never claimed to be trying to inject a dose of morality and humanity into the world of malpractice litigation when they drafted the apology statutes. The AMA calls them Apology Inadmissibility Laws, after all, and its state-by-state overview is titled a “Summary of State Legislation.” Three states and the District of Columbia are quite up-front about their purpose in enacting apology laws when they restrict the domain of expressions to cases in which civil action has already been undertaken. Also, given the size and complexity of the U.S. medical system, it isn’t surprising that a solution to the problem of fatal medical error would include bottom-line considerations. Early last year, journalist Steven Brill provided an exhaustive investigation into how Big Medicine operates in the U.S.18 Anyone reading his descriptions of the often inscrutable world of the business side of medicine would easily understand why such ethical considerations as the doctor-patient relationship would play second fiddle to financial concerns in any attempt to improve the system. Add in the cost of malpractice insurance and lawsuits, and hospital administrators and state legislators would be deemed fiscally irresponsible if they undertook any kind of medical system overhaul without keeping the costs of malpractice litigation firmly in mind. Still, the laws arose against the backdrop of the IOM report’s dismaying statistics on patient mortality. They were seen as a potential solution to medical error, and because medical error necessarily entails a doctor to commit the error and a patient to be harmed by it, ethicists had good reason to believe the laws might include an ethical component—that the apologies covered by the statutes would be real ones offered sincerely and openly by remorseful doctors to their suffering patients. When Cohen wrote about that first apology law in Colorado, he welcomed it as an opportunity to “promote an open, trusting and care-giving relationship following medical error.”19 Similarly, Dresser thought the statutes had the potential to “advance other ethical objectives,” such as enabling doctors to “tell the truth and promote patients’ best interests.”20 Yet even if the intent of the laws was always to reduce the number and impact of malpractice claims, that doesn’t mean that lawmakers and hospitals are justified in letting the doctor-patient relationship go by the wayside. Without doctors and patients, the medical enterprise wouldn’t exist. Their relationship is the foundation of both medicine and bioethics. A solution to the problem of patient safety, then, will necessarily have to be an ethical one. The legacy of the apology inadmissibility law movement has turned out to be a raft of statutes that suggest new ways of protecting the medical establishment from its own mistakes. The unintended consequences of these seemingly well-intended laws are doctors who can’t apologize for harming their patients even if they want to and injured patients who’ve been abandoned by their caregivers. PDF REFERENCE NOTES 1. To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System, ed. L. Kohn, J. Corrigan, M. Donaldson, p. 26. 2. J. Cohen, “Toward Candor After Medical Error: The First Apology Law,” Harvard Health Policy Review 5, no. 1, p. 21. 3. CRS §13-25-135: Colorado Law Governing Apology for Unanticipated Outcome in Medical-Legal Proceeding. 4. J. Cohen, “Toward Candor After Medical Error: The First Apology Law,” p. 21–22. 5. “Apology Inadmissibility Laws: Summary of State Legislation,” American Medical Association Advocacy Resource Center. 6. Ibid. 7. J. Robbennolt, “Apologies and Legal Settlement: An Empirical Examination,” Michigan Law Review 102, no. 3, p. 460–516. 8. L. Taft, “Apology Within a Moral Dialectic: A Reply to Professor Robbennolt,” Michigan Law Review 103, no. 5, p. 1011. 9. Ibid. 10. R. Dresser, “The Limits of Apology Laws,” Hastings Center Report 38, no. 3, p. 7. 11. “Apology Inadmissibility Laws: Summary of State Legislation.” 12. N. Berlinger, “Avoiding Cheap Grace: Medical Harm, Patient Safety, and the Culture of Forgiveness,” Hastings Center Report 33, no. 6, p. 34. 13. A. Mastroianni, M. Mello, S. Sommer, M. Hardy, T. Gallagher, “The Flaws in State ‘Apology’ and ‘Disclosure’ Laws Dilute Their Intended Impact on Malpractice Suits,” Health Affairs 29, no. 9, p. 1611. 14. J. Cohen, “Toward Candor After Medical Error: The First Apology Law,” p. 24. 15. L. Taft, “Apology Within a Moral Dialectic: A Reply to Professor Robbennolt,” p. 1016. 16. Ibid., p. 1014. 17. F. Fagadau Bender, “‘I’m Sorry’ Laws and Medical Liability,” American Medical Association Journal of Ethics 9, no. 4, p. 302. 18. S. Brill, “Bitter Pill: Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us,” Time 181, no. 8. 19. J. Cohen, “Toward Candor After Medical Error: The First Apology Law,” p. 22. 20. R. Dresser, “The Limits of Apology Laws,” p. 6. (shrink)

As official apologies by political, corporate, and religious leaders becoming increasingly commonplace – offered in response to everything from personal wrongdoing to historical oppression and genocide – providing a plausible account of what such apologies can and cannot accomplish is of paramount importance. Yet reigning theories of apology typically conceive of them primarily as moral and not political phenomena, often modeling official apologies after interpersonal ones. This risks distorting the meaning and function of political apologies, while holding them to an (...) impossible standard. In this paper, I argue that we require a normative theory of official apologies as political practice, and that crucial resources for this theory can be found in Hannah Arendt’s account of meaningful speech and action. In the Human Condition, Arendt privileges what she calls political speech and action as the highest category of human activity, which she identifies according to the following features: i) it can only take place with others; ii) it forces the agent to risk something by disclosing him or herself; iii) it creates a meaningful narrative; and, iv) it engenders some new relationship among those involved. These features, taken together, are a very good description of a successful apology. Furthermore, Arendt’s account of political speech depends upon her account of political forgiveness and political promising, two practices closely linked to the emerging practice of official state apology. In particular, I argue, theorizing apologies as Arendtian speech draws our attention to hitherto overlooked or underemphasized features of apologies and their functions, such the role they play – both powerful and problematic – in establishing authoritative narratives. (shrink)

IntroductionThe possibility of prospective apologies has been ignored and conditional apologies have typically been thought to be insincere, deceptive, or at the very least, not meaningful. In large part this is because authors have attended to a particular suite of psychological features of those who issue an apology, and the presence of this suite of features has been taken to provide evidence that an apology is meaningful, while the absence of said psychological features is taken to provide evidence that the (...) apology is not meaningful. Since there is prima facie good reason to suppose that no agent issuing a conditional or prospective apology could have (all) of these psychological features, it has been largely assumed that such apologies cannot be meaningful. This paper argues that this is a mistake. More careful consideration of prospective and conditional apologies suggests that they can be meaningful. That, in turn, suggests that we should look more closely at the role of these f. (shrink)

In this follow up to I Was Wrong: The Meanings of Apologies, Nick Smith expands his ambitious theories of categorical apologies to civil and criminal law. After rejecting court-ordered apologies as unjustifiable humiliation, this book explains that penitentiaries were originally designed to bring about penance - something like apology - and that this tradition has been lost in the assembly line of mass incarceration. Smith argues that the state should modernize these principles and techniques to reduce punishments for offenders who (...) demonstrate moral transformation through apologizing. Smith also explains the counterintuitive situation whereby apologies come to have considerable financial worth in civil cases because victims associate them with priceless matters of the soul. Such confusions allow powerful wrongdoers to manipulate perceptions to disastrous effect, such as when corporations or governments assert that apologies do not equate to accepting blame or require reform or redress. (shrink)

This paper explores the vulnerability of Latin American human subjects, and how their vulnerability is ignored due to the complexities and inconsistencies of oversight committees and institutional policies. Secondly, the concept of apology is examined and its meaning to victims of past research abuses.

Although conceptually distinct, ‘ time ’ and ‘community’ are multiply intertwined within a myriad of key debates in both the social sciences and the humanities. Even so, the role of conceptions of time in social practices of inclusion and exclusion has yet to achieve the prominence of other key analytical categories such as identity and space. This article seeks to contribute to the development of this field by highlighting the importance of thinking time and community together through the lens of (...) political apologies. Often ostensibly offered in order to re-articulate both the constitution of ‘the community’ and its future direction, official apologies are prime examples of deliberate attempts to intervene in shared understandings of political community and its temporality. Offering a detailed case study of one of these apologies, I will focus on Australian debates over the removal of indigenous children from their families, known as the Stolen Generations, and examine the temporal dimensions of the different responses offered by former prime ministers John Howard and Kevin Rudd. (shrink)

This paper argues against an individualist challenge to the possibility of corporate apologies. According to this challenge, corporations always and only act through their members; thus they are not the sorts of entities that can apologize. Consequently there can be no corporate apologies. Against this challenge, this paper argues that even if corporate acts can be analyzed as acts by individuals within certain relationships, there can still be corporate apologies. This paper offers a noneliminative individualist account of such apologies. The (...) paper also responds to various substantive objections to the possibility of such apologies. (shrink)

Since the 1990s we witness a rise in public apologies. Are we living in the ‘Age of Apology’? Interesting research questions can be raised about the opportunity, the form, the meaning, the effectiveness and the ethical implications of public apologies. Are they not merely a clever and easy device to escape real and tangible responsibility for mistakes or wrong done? Are they not at risk to become well-rehearsed rituals that claim to express regret but, in fact, avoid doing so? In (...) a joint interdisciplinary effort, the contributors to this book, combining findings from their specific fields of research (legal, religious, political, linguistic, marketing and communication studies), attempt to articulate this tension between ritual and sincere regret, between the discourse and the content of apologies, between excuses that pretend and regret that seeks reconciliation. (shrink)

In this paper, I explore how theorists might navigate a course between the twin dangers of piety and excess cynicism when thinking critically about state apologies, by focusing on two government apologies to indigenous peoples: namely, those made by the Australian and Canadian Prime Ministers in 2008. Both apologies are notable for several reasons: they were both issued by heads of government, and spoken on record within the space of government: the national parliaments of both countries. Furthermore, in each case, (...) the object of the apology – that which was apologized for – comes closer to disrupting the idea both countries have of themselves, and their image in the global political community, than any previous apologies made by either government. Perhaps as a result, both apologies were surrounded by celebration and controversy alike, and tracing their consequences – even in the short term – is a difficult business. We avoid excessive piety or cynicism, I argue, when we take several things into account. First, apologies have multiple functions: they narrate particular histories of wrongdoing, they express disavowal of that wrongdoing, and they commit to appropriate forms of repair or renewal. Second, the significance and the success of each function must be assessed contextually. Third, when turning to official political apologies, in particular, appropriate assessment of their capacity to disavow or to commit requires that consider apologies both as performance and as political action. While there remain significant questions regarding the practice of political apology – in particular, its relationship to practices of reparation, forgiveness and reconciliation – this approach can provide a framework with which to best consider them. (shrink)

Most normative theorists of public apology agree that, while apologies may have multiple purposes, central to most of them is the apology’s narrative power; that is, its ability to tell new stories of wrongdoing, responsibility, and accountability. We judge political apologies by whether they correctly identify the harms in question and the apologizer as the responsible party, whether they acknowledge the effects of this harms on the recipients of apology, and whether they successfully address those recipients as persons deserving respect. (...) The narrative power of official public apologies can also alter legal and political record, as well as media discourse nationally and internationally. Drawing on multiple examples of public apologies to women that were offered (or demanded and not offered), I identify three ways in which attention to gender complicates our understanding of public apology, and the narrative power they hold. These include the difficulties of articulating the nature of gendered harm, given the depoliticization of women’s roles and the stigma surrounding sexual violence, the complexities of traversing the public/private divide by bringing private stories of gendered harm to public attention, and the ways in which attending to gendered and sexual violence reframes our understanding of both political responsibility for wrongdoing, and how apologies express and affirm that responsibility. (shrink)

Apology An apology is the act of declaring one’s regret, remorse, or sorrow for having insulted, failed, injured, harmed or wronged another. Some apologies are interpersonal (between individuals, that is, between friends, family members, colleagues, lovers, neighbours, or strangers). Other apologies are collective (by one group to another group or by a group to an […].