NationStates Jolt Archive

YES! I'm back! :D

My move is nearly complete, and last night, BT finally pulled their hands out of their ****, so I have internet at my new place. :cool:

Which means it is once again time for my unique brand of pointless yet thought-provoking musings on random aspects of philosophies of life, such as existentialism and patriotism.

This time around, contrition.

Disclaimer: No, I have not cheated on anyone, so stay on-topic. :rolleyes:



Suppose you have done something wrong, something inexcusable, or perhaps more accurately, something for which you know you will not receive forgiveness.

Is there a point in apologising?

On the one hand, an apology may be considered an absolute necessity in all cases of wrong-doing. Many people would say that an apology has an intrinsic value, irrespective of whether or not it is accepted. That an individual has a duty to his/her own humanity to explicitly express remorse, even if the act is known in advance to be futile.

On the other hand, one could be making things worse, very likely appearing to be not an individual apologising out of a sense of remorse, but out of an erroneous narcisstic belief that one will receive forgiveness and be able to return the context of the grievance to its former state.

But to fail to address the issue out of a fear that the latter scenario would transpire, would be to open oneself to accusations of arrogance, of a casual attitude to people's feelings. Accepting the situation as a bad one and silently conceeding defeat, could be perceived as the weight of the act resting far too easily upon one's conscience.

One is of course forced by the passage of time to choose between the two options. Is either of them generally (universally?) held to be the better choice? If so, why?

I would suggest that in most cases contrition is a good thing if it is sincere, regardless of the likelyhood of the victim granting forgiveness. At the very least, contrition allows us to forgive ourselves more easily. That's my experience, anyway.

Suppose you have done something wrong, something inexcusable, or perhaps more accurately, something for which you know you will not receive forgiveness.

Is there a point in apologising?

On the one hand, an apology may be considered an absolute necessity in all cases of wrong-doing. Many people would say that an apology has an intrinsic value, irrespective of whether or not it is accepted. That an individual has a duty to his/her own humanity to explicitly express remorse, even if the act is known in advance to be futile.

On the other hand, one could be making things worse, very likely appearing to be not an individual apologising out of a sense of remorse, but out of an erroneous narcisstic belief that one will receive forgiveness and be able to return the context of the grievance to its former state.

But to fail to address the issue out of a fear that the latter scenario would transpire, would be to open oneself to accusations of arrogance, of a casual attitude to people's feelings. Accepting the situation as a bad one and silently conceeding defeat, could be perceived as the weight of the act resting far too easily upon one's conscience.

One is of course forced by the passage of time to choose between the two options. Is either of them generally (universally?) held to be the better choice? If so, why?
Appearances are irrelevant. Forgivance is not something one should ever expect from those whom they have wronged; the asking of it is a mechanism. Any apology made should be approached not from an expectation of forgivance or to make the offended party feel better, but to relieve one's own burden. It is more important to forgive yourself in these instances than to receive the forgivance of others. But sometimes it is their spoken forgivance that allows you to forgive yourself.

Or, on a more mundane level, if acting or not acting could both make things worse, better to act. Do your part; let them take care of theirs.

Apologies are nearly worthless. I find that they most often serve as a show of submissiveness to the one you have wronged, when you generally feel you need them for something.

apologies are always appropriate. especially when you know they wont be accepted. we must publicly acknowledge our grave errors. the more sincere and contrite the better.

even when they arent accepted i think that the person who you wronged has some appreciation of you admitting you were wrong. it is so galling when a child murderer (to use an unforgivable example) refuses to admit his guilt and face his just punishment. the denial is an insult in itself.

Depending on how you've wronged the person, a simple apology may not be enough, even if sincere. True repentance involves correcting or mitigating the harm done, to the extent that this is possible. (Yes, there are some cases where this is impossible, such as murder. However, most of us are not murderers, and most everyday wrongs can be at least partially righted, so the principle is still valid.)

Whether you expect to receive forgiveness is completely irrelevant. In fact, you shouldn't expect it; if forgiveness is given, it is a gift from the giver, not a right. This does not relieve one of the moral burden of repentance and atonement.

In brief: If you screwed up, admit it like an adult, apologize, and fix your mistake if possible. But don't expect a medal for it.

(Kids, this is the result of a Catholic education. Once you've had one, you can never again claim ignorance or uncertainty in a question of morality. Goddamned Jesuits and their goddamned moral logic! :mad: )

YES! I'm back! :D

My move is nearly complete, and last night, BT finally pulled their hands out of their ****, so I have internet at my new place. :cool:

Which means it is once again time for my unique brand of pointless yet thought-provoking musings on random aspects of philosophies of life, such as existentialism and patriotism.

This time around, contrition.

Disclaimer: No, I have not cheated on anyone, so stay on-topic. :rolleyes:



Suppose you have done something wrong, something inexcusable, or perhaps more accurately, something for which you know you will not receive forgiveness.

Is there a point in apologising?

On the one hand, an apology may be considered an absolute necessity in all cases of wrong-doing. Many people would say that an apology has an intrinsic value, irrespective of whether or not it is accepted. That an individual has a duty to his/her own humanity to explicitly express remorse, even if the act is known in advance to be futile.

On the other hand, one could be making things worse, very likely appearing to be not an individual apologising out of a sense of remorse, but out of an erroneous narcisstic belief that one will receive forgiveness and be able to return the context of the grievance to its former state.

But to fail to address the issue out of a fear that the latter scenario would transpire, would be to open oneself to accusations of arrogance, of a casual attitude to people's feelings. Accepting the situation as a bad one and silently conceeding defeat, could be perceived as the weight of the act resting far too easily upon one's conscience.

One is of course forced by the passage of time to choose between the two options. Is either of them generally (universally?) held to be the better choice? If so, why?

Apologise, but don't over-egg the pudding. Say sorry, show remorse (if felt), but then the important thing is to deal with the situation created and ensure the behaviour never happens again.