I don’t think apoligies should be based on being wrong. I am not super sure which is a better basis but I am going to say that being “unreasonable” is better basis. The default case might be that people demand others to follow their view. Thus being wrong makes a demand often unreasonable. But if you don’t make a demand it can’t be unsreasonable and you can be reasonably wrong. I think if you are “merely” wrong you should aknowledge that but you need not and should not apoligise for it. I think “mistaken” refers to this situation.
And it’s possible to be unreasonable by being right. Or right and wrong have rings in my mind that are close to “true” and “false” but in this context “socially permissible” is more relevant (right in the sense of “duty and right”). If someone is ugly, and you say they are ugly, trying to get out of apoligising by referring that your statement is true is not a super relevant defence. “But hey he is” means more of “I should be allowed to bash this person”. A more relevant defence would be that you did not try to lower the targets social status or hurt their feelings ie it was not a bash. In general if the conflict depends on you being correct or incorrect there are issues beside technical accuracy that you need to worry about.
I have been dealing with a situation where a person would reflexively apoligise to me. I learned to ask what they were apoligising about and when the person could not state it made the apology not work for me. “Apologise for that” needs the “that” be sufficiently understood and it’s possible that you think everybody knows what it refers to without the party giving the apology knowing what it means. Apology atleast to me means that you are willing and equipped in a future situation to avoid the occurrence of what just happens. The action can be false if you do not have the capcity to recognise what similar situations would be or how you could do differently in them. The most common assumption is that the party is unwilling to do so or was not aware that another had wishes about their action.
I don’t think apoligies should be based on being wrong. I am not super sure which is a better basis but I am going to say that being “unreasonable” is better basis. The default case might be that people demand others to follow their view. Thus being wrong makes a demand often unreasonable. But if you don’t make a demand it can’t be unsreasonable and you can be reasonably wrong. I think if you are “merely” wrong you should aknowledge that but you need not and should not apoligise for it. I think “mistaken” refers to this situation.
And it’s possible to be unreasonable by being right. Or right and wrong have rings in my mind that are close to “true” and “false” but in this context “socially permissible” is more relevant (right in the sense of “duty and right”). If someone is ugly, and you say they are ugly, trying to get out of apoligising by referring that your statement is true is not a super relevant defence. “But hey he is” means more of “I should be allowed to bash this person”. A more relevant defence would be that you did not try to lower the targets social status or hurt their feelings ie it was not a bash. In general if the conflict depends on you being correct or incorrect there are issues beside technical accuracy that you need to worry about.
I have been dealing with a situation where a person would reflexively apoligise to me. I learned to ask what they were apoligising about and when the person could not state it made the apology not work for me. “Apologise for that” needs the “that” be sufficiently understood and it’s possible that you think everybody knows what it refers to without the party giving the apology knowing what it means. Apology atleast to me means that you are willing and equipped in a future situation to avoid the occurrence of what just happens. The action can be false if you do not have the capcity to recognise what similar situations would be or how you could do differently in them. The most common assumption is that the party is unwilling to do so or was not aware that another had wishes about their action.