Is the act of apologizing, assuming it is done in good faith, i.e. genuine, and whether or not the situation objectively calls for an apology, a declaration of equality? — Sunshine Sami

I don't know if equality is implied, but there does seem to be some recognition of worth. I tend to more or less explicitly size up others. Are they truly peers? Or not quite? Or not a chance? Or (exciting and threatening) superior somehow?

I'd apologize to anyone if I felt I had violated the informal but important social contract. I've apologized to 'enemies' as they apologized to me (I apologized for being too counter-aggressive, for instance.)

In much the same way, I wonder, that greeting a stranger with “hello” carries an assumption that the stranger is seen as an equal by the greeter. — Sunshine Sami

Same as above, in my view. No equality implied, but only a basic respect of the other as (at least) minimally worthy of regard. I would not say 'hello' to people with threatening demeanors. I cut off empathy/recognition as a preparation for symbolic/literal violence. Now and then especially certain men remind me of big dogs that got away from their owners. Funny how a whiff of the threat of violence changes all the rules.

Of course, that also assumes that the person receiving the apology does not then manipulate the situation to extract further admittance of responsibility and other unsavory demands from the person apologizing. — Sunshine Sami

Right. And occasionally you might tell your spouse that you're sorry just to stop her acting the fool. You are (in your own mind) justified in faking a sincere apology if an angry friend or lover demands one in an excessive way. All's fair in love and war, etc.

Yes! You mention something so important in today’s manipulative world, the idea of “worth”. Perhaps worth is more important than equality; perhaps worth has become something we sell about ourselves, whereas apology can be construed as a way of conferring worth on the other. In that case, can the act subdue a threat? In the theater, apology is a very powerful “weapon” as used by playwrights.

I can’t think of extracts from plays right at this moment where apology has calmed an angry spirit, but they are there.

We come to know moral truths in a very similar way to how we come to know mathematical or logical truths — darthbarracuda

You need to decide if this is your story or not. If it is, then structuralism accounts for how deep “truths” are “pragmatically” emergent rather than Platonically transcendent.

To be consistent, I guess you would have to be a mathematical Platonist. Hence your notion of intuitionism is really the one relying on mystical revelationism rather than inferential abstraction.

That gets us back to my feeling that your position is not well thought out. It is pick n mix and dependent on whatever best suits your personal ethical preferences.

Checking out Audi, his epistemology in fact seems like standard pragmatism. We make abductive leaps to get our arguments going. But maybe it lacks the follow through - the inductive confirmation of the ethical theory thus produced?

Anyway, ethical intuitionism seems pretty bust on most accounts.

Ethical intuitionism suffered a dramatic fall from favor by the middle of the century, due in part to the influence of logical positivism, in part to the rising popularity of naturalism in philosophy, and in part to philosophical objections based on the phenomenon of widespread moral disagreement. C. L. Stevenson's emotivism would prove especially attractive to Moorean intuitionists seeking to avoid ethical naturalism.[11] In the later parts of the 20th century, intuitionism would have few adherents to speak of; in Bernard Williams' words: "This model of intuition in ethics has been demolished by a succession of critics, and the ruins of it that remain above ground are not impressive enough to invite much history of what happened to it."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_intuitionism

In that case, can the act subdue a threat? — Sunshine Sami

Definitely. We can accrue a symbolic debt. Others can put us in the maybe-an-enemy category. An apology can resolve the ambiguity and reframe the event as an accident or a misunderstanding.

I think we'd generally rather lose 50 dollars to an error than have 5 dollars stolen from us intentionally. 'Violence is the quest for identity.' A willful violation of our dignity/worth calls the blood to revenge. (We may swallow this rage for reasons of prudence. We may comfort ourselves with a thought that the offender is himself beneath notice. )


(By the way, you can highlight what you respond to and a quote button will appear. This notifies those you respond to that you have responded.)

I can’t think of extracts from plays right at this moment where apology has calmed an angry spirit, but they are there. — Sunshine Sami

I've retracted my claws after an offender's apology in my own life. It was sincere. It worked. That's when I apologized for being too outraged. (A woman was involved. I might have slapped his face with a dainty purple glove and chose a second and a brace of pistols. An affair of honor. Old school primitive stuff in the blood.)

↪charleton You sound like you're from a top 10 worst anime villains of all time. — darthbarracuda

I too mature to take anime as some sort of moral guide. Why don't you at least TRY to grow up?

And it does still leave open the fact that apologies can have useful transactional values within such a “purely rational” setting. Other folk still tend to have feelings that can get hurt. It can pay to recognise that even if no moral ought is involved. — apokrisis

You mean I might apologise to spare another's feelings? Yes I might, but I don't like to do that as it gives me the moral high ground, and that's not what I am interested in. I prefer to be honest.

Anyway, ethical intuitionism seems pretty bust on most accounts. — apokrisis

This is a huge misunderstanding these days, unfortunately. Intuitionism fell out of favor because the major defenders died, and the idea was subsequently misinterpreted horribly later on. It's getting a good revival nowadays though. Michael Huemer's Ethical Intuitionism was one of the books that helped launch it back to the forefront of moral realism. But this is a detour from the OP, I'll make a different post later when I have more time.