Contra Pace on When to Apologize

BOJACK: Hey, I wanted to talk to you about—you know—I feel bad about what happened. HERB: So, you're apologizing. BOJACK: Yes. I'm sorry. HERB: Okay. I don't forgive you. BOJACK: Herb, I said I'm sorry. HERB: Yeah. And I do not forgive you. BOJACK: Uh, not sure you get what's happening here. This could be the last time that you— HERB: No. I'm not going to give you closure. You don't get that. You have to live with the shitty thing you did for the rest of your life. You have to know that it's never, ever going to be okay. BOJACK: I really think that we'd both feel better if we just— HERB: I'm dying! I'm not going to feel better. And I'm not going to be your prop so you can feel better. —Bojack Horseman, "The Telescope" In "The Financial Ledger Theory of Apologies", Ben Pace argues against the view that one should only apologize for having harmed someone if one acknowledges that one should have behaved differently. Rather, Pace thinks that it makes sense to accept ex post costs imposed on others "on one's own ledger" even if one has no intention of changing one's ex ante behavior. Unfortunately, Pace's analysis is sorely lacking on several counts. Genuine Regret Implies Policy Updates Pace writes: If I'm running around because I have somewhere important to do and quickly, and I bump into someone, my response isn't "I understand that I imposed a cost on you but I'm not going to be changing my policy of moving quickly when things are important and time-sensitive." I say "Oh I'm sorry!". The policy I'm running isn't to externalize the costs, it's to internalize them. This makes people not have to worry about me being around them. But we should distinguish sincerely intended apologies from the social convention of saying the words "I'm sorry" to acknowledge a harm. If you routinely bump into people while moving quickly, it's better to say "Sorry" than to not acknowledge the incident at all, but you shouldn't be writing blog posts claiming that saying it makes people not h