i, too, hold economic-based model of apology. apologizing mean to say “i owe you”. like if i break something in store, i acknowledge i need to pay for it. which make the whole post feel like it miss the point.
What would it even mean to purportedly accept the cost “on one’s ledger” but not change one’s behavior going forward?
well, that i owe you. for example, i apologize for spilling the wine of your outfit. can i pay the cleaning price, or the price to replace it? this is not, in any way, mean i will avoid drinking wine in the future, or be more careful. maybe it’s my endorsed trade off. but part of this trade off is paying the price of the wine-spilling.
When someone wrongs me, it seems like the smallest ask I could reasonably make in exchange for my forgiveness is that they not do that again
I have to admit I’m skeptical. If I can’t ask not to be hurt again, what can I ask for? Money? Chocolate? Their car?
well, yes, actually. asking me to pay for the ruined outfit is much smaller ask then to change behaviour pattern foe example, avoiding drinking wine. but the part of paying for the ruined outfit is critical in making good trade offs, ones the does not just externalize costs on others.
the idea person must change behavior of harm occur look to me like part of general pattern of inability to accept trade off and bad things, that sort of thing that lead to Fabricated Options.
it’s fine to bump into someone if i need to do that to save my cat, and also, it incur cost that i should internalize, to align the incentives. so i will bump, and own you metaphorical 5 dollars. and yes, you can think 5 dollars is to little and refuse to accept the apology. this is fine, it;s still part of the game.
but the idea that i can’t do something with some downside, and then offset the downside somehow, it’s just lead to people lying to themselves a lot. there are no ways to live your live with no harms done. you must chose the lesser one and internalize the cost. because attempting to never cause harm just lead to Fabricated Options.
i, too, hold economic-based model of apology. apologizing mean to say “i owe you”. like if i break something in store, i acknowledge i need to pay for it. which make the whole post feel like it miss the point.
well, that i owe you. for example, i apologize for spilling the wine of your outfit. can i pay the cleaning price, or the price to replace it? this is not, in any way, mean i will avoid drinking wine in the future, or be more careful. maybe it’s my endorsed trade off. but part of this trade off is paying the price of the wine-spilling.
well, yes, actually. asking me to pay for the ruined outfit is much smaller ask then to change behaviour pattern foe example, avoiding drinking wine. but the part of paying for the ruined outfit is critical in making good trade offs, ones the does not just externalize costs on others.
the idea person must change behavior of harm occur look to me like part of general pattern of inability to accept trade off and bad things, that sort of thing that lead to Fabricated Options.
it’s fine to bump into someone if i need to do that to save my cat, and also, it incur cost that i should internalize, to align the incentives. so i will bump, and own you metaphorical 5 dollars. and yes, you can think 5 dollars is to little and refuse to accept the apology. this is fine, it;s still part of the game.
but the idea that i can’t do something with some downside, and then offset the downside somehow, it’s just lead to people lying to themselves a lot. there are no ways to live your live with no harms done. you must chose the lesser one and internalize the cost. because attempting to never cause harm just lead to Fabricated Options.