What about apologising for something an organisation did in the past because you happen to be the current leader of that organisation?
Besides this, seeing things in terms of "requiring" is the kind of legalistic nonsense that hinders good relations everywhere. The question is not whether someone is "required" to apologise for something -- they aren't -- but whether it would have good consequences for them to do so anyway.
In common with most British people I apologise when people ram into me in the street. I find your notion of responsibility morally repugnant. But if it's so pathetically fragile as to sustain all this damage from every supererogatory act of courtesy, at least I know it's not long for this world.
The British Government, of which he is the head, and state, of which he is the most prominent spokesperson, did wrong people who have asked for an apology. It's perfectly coherent for him to apologise on their behalf. He wasn't a member of them then, but he is now.
Presumably you're the kind of person who, if your friend had been beaten up by your parents, brothers and sisters, would never dream of saying to your friend on a later occasion, "I apologise on behalf of my family." For lo, you have ruminated, and found that it would be Abrahamic. Fortunately many other people would. The world is a better place for it.
accomplishes quite a lot without actually doing anythingDidn't it excite your curiousity that you'd come to such an incoherent conclusion? If it accomplishes something then clearly it does something, namely accomplish whatever it accomplishes. Since you're so down on performatives for not "doing" anything, I guess you never thank anyone either
( ... )
Quite right -- the tone sounded inappropriately personal. I apologise.
(There, see? Apologising makes us all feel better, and it's free. More fun than a day at the circus! Why doesn't Tony Blair try it?)
As you'll see above I agree with you about part of the story, but not about apologising by a long chalk. And I've just realised I've apologised to you which you find a bad shady ritual, so perhaps you think I've just done something bad and shady, in which case I apologise for that too. No, wait ... in which case I don't apologise for that too! Um wait, that doesn't quite sound right either ...
I agree with the sentiment: for me, "things my distant ancestors did" are a remote semantic category from "apology". Any "apology" I might make on the subject would be hollow. However, you and I are still the beneficiaries of those acts. Those dead white people made a lot of money from their evil acts, and developed a huge industrial and military power base which persists today and from which we both benefit. On the other side of the coin, there are many millions of people alive today in groups greatly disadvantaged and suffering as a result of those evil acts. So I don't think we're in a moral position to decide whether or not an apology is appropriate. And an apology from Tony Blair, or the Queen, would be a corporate apology from an institution which persists.
However, you and I are still the beneficiaries of those acts. Those dead white people made a lot of money from their evil acts, and developed a huge industrial and military power base which persists today and from which we both benefit.
But I at least didn't ask to benefit from it, didn't get any say in the matter.
You find a couple of £10 notes in the street; there's nobody around who might be the legitimate owner. You take the money and spend it. Later you're reading the paper and discover that police interrupted a robbery, and the criminals dropped some of the drug money during their escape. Do you go to the store that was robbed and apologize for it being robbed?
Basically, I don't believe that benefiting from an action is sufficient to make you morally culpable for that action.
I'm with writinghawk and nickbarnes. In the UK we benefit from an industrial society originally funded by the proceeds of our empire. We are not responsible for the oppression carried out by our ancestors, but it's not unreasonable to say we're sorry - words, after all, are cheap - and to do our best to use our privileged position to make amends. It's just a matter of common decency.
Also, I don't like the way chard has phrased his post. He doesn't say who is doing the "requiring" here, but reading the news it looks to me like he's referring to Diane Abbott, Denzil Douglas, and Rowan Williams, among others. I think it's wrong to accuse these people of holding racist views on such slender evidence. Maybe an apology is in order?
I'm not saying anything about whether we should apologise or not, whether it's expensive or cheap, whether it would make people feel better, whether it would be nice or decent, etc. I'm only saying that requiring an apology from me seems to suffer from the same moral problems as racism, because it groups people in a racist way.
I have no idea who I might be insulting by making such a suggestion. I have not paid any attention to who is saying what. I'm certainly sorry if anyone is insulted, since it is not my intention to make anyone feel bad, only to test a proposition and understand things better.
You can replace "require" with "ask for" or even "desire" if you like. That's not the point.
There is a very good point here about benefiting from something. In comparing the country to a company, I forgot that a company has a value that is independent of its staff, policies, etc. and if that value is increased by some bad pracice then there might be some sense in which the responsibility remains attached to the company. That seems
( ... )
requiring an apology from me seems to suffer from the same moral problems as racism, because it groups people in a racist way
You're arguing with a straw man here, because race is not being given the reason why anyone needs to apologise. Let's look at what the people who are actually asking for an apology are saying.
Diane Abbott:The slave trade was not just a temporary aberration in Britain. It was part of the fabric of British economic and political life for generations and it was the profits from the slave trade that helped to fund the Industrial Revolution that made Britain a world power in the 19th century. Rowan Williams:We, who are the heirs of the slave-owning and slave-trading nations of the past, have to face the fact that our historic prosperity was built in large part on this atrocity. Denzil Douglas:Countries that were engaged in the Slave Trade and Slavery have a moral obligation to make right those crimes against humanity These people are not asking the anyone to apologise because of their race, they are asking people to
( ... )
Comments 30
Besides this, seeing things in terms of "requiring" is the kind of legalistic nonsense that hinders good relations everywhere. The question is not whether someone is "required" to apologise for something -- they aren't -- but whether it would have good consequences for them to do so anyway.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Suppose I were to apologize for the Boston Tea Party. Would you feel any better for my doing so?
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Presumably you're the kind of person who, if your friend had been beaten up by your parents, brothers and sisters, would never dream of saying to your friend on a later occasion, "I apologise on behalf of my family." For lo, you have ruminated, and found that it would be Abrahamic. Fortunately many other people would. The world is a better place for it.
accomplishes quite a lot without actually doing anythingDidn't it excite your curiousity that you'd come to such an incoherent conclusion? If it accomplishes something then clearly it does something, namely accomplish whatever it accomplishes. Since you're so down on performatives for not "doing" anything, I guess you never thank anyone either ( ... )
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
(There, see? Apologising makes us all feel better, and it's free. More fun than a day at the circus! Why doesn't Tony Blair try it?)
As you'll see above I agree with you about part of the story, but not about apologising by a long chalk. And I've just realised I've apologised to you which you find a bad shady ritual, so perhaps you think I've just done something bad and shady, in which case I apologise for that too. No, wait ... in which case I don't apologise for that too! Um wait, that doesn't quite sound right either ...
Reply
However, you and I are still the beneficiaries of those acts. Those dead white people made a lot of money from their evil acts, and developed a huge industrial and military power base which persists today and from which we both benefit. On the other side of the coin, there are many millions of people alive today in groups greatly disadvantaged and suffering as a result of those evil acts. So I don't think we're in a moral position to decide whether or not an apology is appropriate.
And an apology from Tony Blair, or the Queen, would be a corporate apology from an institution which persists.
Reply
Reply
But I at least didn't ask to benefit from it, didn't get any say in the matter.
You find a couple of £10 notes in the street; there's nobody around who might be the legitimate owner. You take the money and spend it. Later you're reading the paper and discover that police interrupted a robbery, and the criminals dropped some of the drug money during their escape. Do you go to the store that was robbed and apologize for it being robbed?
Basically, I don't believe that benefiting from an action is sufficient to make you morally culpable for that action.
Reply
It's curious how often there's something rather grubby and unedifying about watching someone explain why they shouldn't apologise for something.
Reply
Also, I don't like the way chard has phrased his post. He doesn't say who is doing the "requiring" here, but reading the news it looks to me like he's referring to Diane Abbott, Denzil Douglas, and Rowan Williams, among others. I think it's wrong to accuse these people of holding racist views on such slender evidence. Maybe an apology is in order?
Reply
I have no idea who I might be insulting by making such a suggestion. I have not paid any attention to who is saying what. I'm certainly sorry if anyone is insulted, since it is not my intention to make anyone feel bad, only to test a proposition and understand things better.
You can replace "require" with "ask for" or even "desire" if you like. That's not the point.
There is a very good point here about benefiting from something. In comparing the country to a company, I forgot that a company has a value that is independent of its staff, policies, etc. and if that value is increased by some bad pracice then there might be some sense in which the responsibility remains attached to the company. That seems ( ... )
Reply
You're arguing with a straw man here, because race is not being given the reason why anyone needs to apologise. Let's look at what the people who are actually asking for an apology are saying.
Diane Abbott:The slave trade was not just a temporary aberration in Britain. It was part of the fabric of British economic and political life for generations and it was the profits from the slave trade that helped to fund the Industrial Revolution that made Britain a world power in the 19th century.
Rowan Williams:We, who are the heirs of the slave-owning and slave-trading nations of the past, have to face the fact that our historic prosperity was built in large part on this atrocity.
Denzil Douglas:Countries that were engaged in the Slave Trade and Slavery have a moral obligation to make right those crimes against humanity
These people are not asking the anyone to apologise because of their race, they are asking people to ( ... )
Reply
Reply
"It was'nt me!"
Therefore why the hell should i apologise.
Reply
Leave a comment