Roger Ebert wrote an excellent piece about the current US healthcare nonsense. I don't have a lot to say on that particular topic; I'm not sure how much interest it has for my readers, and he's much better positioned to talk about it and be listened to than I am. One thing I'd like to say, though, is that it reminds me how glad I am I'm living in Canada. Another thing is that, okay, Ebert talks about how "socialism" is a dirty word and used as an excuse for turning off one's brain. Any rational argument on US healthcare can be trumped by calling the other party "socialist." Well, in Canada's own health care debates, which are going on right now though on a much smaller scale than the ones in the States, we have a dirty word like that too. It's used as an excuse for abandoning rational thought. If you propose a plan and I disagree with it, all I have to do is accuse you of proposing a (this dirty word) plan, and that's it, I win, no more debate allowed. Just like calling someone "socialist" in the USA; but the dirty word in Canadian health care debates isn't "socialist."
Our dirty word is "American."
What interests me more, though, is an exchange embedded in the comments. Someone signing as "Ken Wells" writes:
I'm sorry but health care cannot be a 'right' because it requires other people to provide it. A legitimate 'right' cannot impose obligation on others except in a negative fashion... meaning all others have to do for you to exercise or enjoy a 'right' is... nothing.
It's usually safe to assume that anyone who makes mock apologies for things they assert to be objective facts, is probably wrong, certainly not a good faith actor, and should be ignored. (What trespass, exactly, is such a person pretending to apologize for?) I tolerated it a few times on "The Terrible Secret of Livejournal" but in general if someone began a comment that way on my Web site, I'd delete it with few qualms - insulting me and my readers with such tactics voids any possible obligation I might ever have had to entertain the person's participation. There's a lot more I'll probably say another time about rhetorical use of fake apologies; it's an interesting topic.
But let's skip over the fake-apology thing for now, because no matter the language he used he's making an important point with deep consequences: your rights have nothing to do with anyone else. Your rights are yours alone and don't come from others. Indeed, you have the right not to have others make claims on you in the name of their own "rights." (Which, by definition, aren't legitimate rights because they would require infringing yours.)
That certainly sounds like a reasonable way to think about human rights. It may even be obvious. It sounds like something someone could reasonably believe, and given the diversity of human thought it sounds like something that probably many people (e.g. the fellow I quoted) already do believe. Maybe you or I believe it too. We could build an entire philosophy of human rights - a set of ideas, a meme complex, or a thought form, if you will - around that idea of rights being only those things that don't place claims on others. It would be meaningful, though I won't do it just yet, to give a name to that thought form, that system of beliefs and teachings that arises from the truth that the only legitimate rights are those that do not impose obligation on others except in a negative fashion. That entity is something worth thinking about - and it's something very attractive.
This is interesting stuff; I'm glad I continued reading that comment after the words "I'm sorry but," which would normally be my cue to ignore the idiot.
Later in the thread, another of Ebert's readers, signing as "Matt L.", writes:
The argument from Ken Wells and others that "health care cannot be a 'right' because it requires other people to provide it" just doesn't work. The right to vote requires the government to organize elections. The right to a fair trial requires a justice system to support it; indeed if the accused had to pay for a judge to hear his or her case, I think it's pretty clear that right is compromised.
Matt L. also seems to be saying something reasonable, and it seems a good rebuttal to Ken Wells. But is Matt L. taking it far enough? If rights that impose on others are no rights at all, then you don't just lose legal-process rights like voting and fair trials. It seems to me that if you don't have any rights that create positive obligations on others, then you really have almost none of the things we normally think of as rights at all - and almost none of the things we think of as making us human. As the saying used to go, no man is an island: human beings are social creatures, and we need (not just want) interaction with other human beings.
It is not in any real way possible to survive as a human being without the participation of others. You need more than just to be left alone: you need large-scale agriculture in order to eat; in most climates where people live, you need shelter that you can't build (from unmanufactured raw materials not touched by any other human being, mind you) all by yourself; and you need social interaction that can only be provided by cooperating groups of human beings. The "pit of despair" experiments of Harlow et al. in the 1970s pretty firmly established what happens to monkeys deprived of interaction with other monkeys, and there's overwhelming evidence that human beings and monkeys are similar enough to draw some reasonable conclusions. Bottom line: you can't survive all alone on your "negative obligation" rights.
Even if you think you can go out in the woods and build a hut from found materials and hunt and gather food without reference to any other human beings, and stay sane doing so, it's something of an illusion because the human population is too big for us all to do that. The amount of land area it takes to support a human being without the efficiencies of large-scale agriculture, multiplied by the number of human beings currently alive, is greater than the amount of land area that exists on Earth. And you will not be going to another planet, nor drastically modifying the landscape to create more livable space, without technology that can only be built by groups of people.
Note that without language, which you can only learn from other human beings, you can't even complain about your rights; you can't really be human. Do you have a right to be taught language?
Well, such a right would certainly impose an obligation on somebody (we can argue about whom - your parents, maybe, or society at large); and it'd certainly be a positive obligation - those obligated cannot discharge their responsibility just by leaving you alone. So this is not a right under Ken Wells's analysis of rights. But without language, you can't even really be human, and you can't exercise most of your other rights in any meaningful way. (Note the experience of what are called "feral children.") Saying that no right can ever create a positive obligation on others effectively means there are no rights at all, because without positive obligations any rights that remain exist in a sort of hypothetical la-la land where they can have no real consequences. I note that even promises made in contracts, which libertarians (such as Ken Wells would probably claim to be) hold sacred, are meaningless without a positive obligation on the contracting parties to keep their promises. Imagine no rights at all. This analysis, this thought-form, that teaches us rights cannot produce positive obligations, it's something that takes away our humanity and our important rights including the no-obligation and negative-obligation rights to which it gives lip service.
It seems reasonable, it's seductive, and it takes away our humanity. Now I can give this thing, this whatever-it-is that I mentioned earlier, a name: it is Evil. If I believed in devils, the entity that teaches that rights cannot produce positive obligations would be a devil, and maybe it would even be The Devil. You could do worse, when looking for a definition of evil and devils, than saying they are that which take away humanity.
I am somewhat tempted to swing in the opposite direction and say that it seems the only legitimate rights are those that do create positive obligations on others. Any others are tautological, making no visible difference in the world. That's not going to work all by itself because the negative-obligation and no-obligation "rights" (like, say, freedom of expression) remain important; but negative obligations can be seen as positive obligations to act in a manner that allows you to exercise your negative-obligation right, and if there are any rights that genuinely create no obligations, those would be the tautological ones. It's not clear how a universe with no-obligation rights would be any different from one without them, so they can't be tested by experiment and discussing them is like discussing the existence or non-existence of God. Maybe we can at least say, and I do, that the only rights that really matter are the ones that create obligations (forget about positive or negative) on others.
After thinking it through to that point I spent some time on the Web and found the article on rights in the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It's fascinating.
That article starts out by talking about four kinds of "Hohfeldian incidents," which are things that might be called rights. The first kind described are "liberties" or "privileges." The article settles on the term "privilege," but that is a dirty word for some of my readers, and to people who think it's a dirty word, it has a meaning pretty much opposite the meaning used here, so to avoid confusion I'm going to use the term "liberty" instead. You have a liberty if you have no conflicting duty. The example given in the article is that if you find a dollar lying by the side of the road, you have the liberty of picking it up as your own. (Even if in some jurisdictions or under some theories of morality that's not the case and you have some duty to turn the money over to the police or something, that's not the point - the point is that if you did have the right to keep the found money, "liberty" is the term we are defining to describe that type of right you might have.)
The really notable thing about a liberty is that it doesn't, at least not directly, involve anyone other than you. It is meaningful to talk about your liberties without mentioning anyone else. You could still have liberties in a universe that contained no other agents. Haruhi-kamisama had liberties even before she started dreaming, if you'll indulge my theology for a moment.
The second Hohfeldian incident is the "claim" - which is the kind of potential right that does create an obligation (a duty, the negation of an opposing liberty) on the part of someone other than whoever has the claim. For instance, the recipient of a promise has a claim on the maker of the promise that that person must fulfill the promise. The right I spoke about above, to be taught language by other human beings, is a claim. Again, even if you don't agree that it is or should be a right, "claim" is the technical term being defined for denoting this kind of thing that might be a right.
The other two incidents, "powers" and "immunities," are meta-rights having to do with creating and securing the others. Read the article for more on those, and on several other interesting distinctions; I'm mostly interested in liberties and claims.
With the clear distinction between liberties and claims it's much easier to think about what I wrote above: Ken Wells's position seems to be that only liberties are ever rights worthy of protection. Presumably he'd also allow the narrow claims needed to allow the liberties to exist, but that's not what he actually said, he said no positive obligations allowed even though some positive obligations appear absolutely necessary. He draws a distinction between "negative" and "positive" obligations, apparently in order to limit what kind of claims will be allowed to exist, but as the encyclopedia article says, "when it comes to the enforcement of rights, this difference disappears." If society is obligated to do something, for instance, enforce a negative-obligation right, then for that to happen some individual(s) end up being positively obligated to do the enforcement; and with no enforcement at all, all the rights seem to vanish from practical existence.
Then on the other side, my point of view can be mapped into the very simple, and similarly-structured, position that only claims are the really important rights; maybe we need some liberties and powers and immunities to support them, but even in that case it's not clear those other incidents should be called "rights" as opposed to consequences of the first-class rights which have to be claims.
Whether you treat liberties or claims as the most important first-class rights, whether you take my position or the position I defined as Evil, seems to make a big difference to how you think about a lot of other important things - as well as determining whether you're bound for Hell, but that's another story. I think it may be one reason people end up arguing at cross-purposes and failing to understand each other when talking about important subjects. It also seems to be a useful tool in thinking about other things. For instance, my complaint about my current job situation, which I've sometimes had trouble articulating to others, can be summed up pretty well by saying that in my current situation it feels like I have plenty of liberties, but few or no claims. I can choose what to do in my work... but I can't expect anything in particular from the people around me.
A while ago Kiwano asked why I was so hung up on getting third-party traffic for my Web site. What was the big important thing I wanted to talk about that needed a large audience of real, involved participants? This is part of it.
When I had this piece half-finished I set it aside and went off to a group event for several hours - during which someone I barely know did something really nice for me, for no apparent reason. He had no relevant obligation as far as I know; I don't think I had any relevant claim-right; but it was important anyway and shook up my view of the situation I was in. As the encyclopedia article describes some of the "critics of rights talk" saying, maybe there are some important issues not well addressed by discussion of rights at all.
Comments
r4v5 from 99.151.160.156 at Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:28:13 +0000:
I will say, the facebook teaser for this cut at exactly the right point to get my American self to read it and then click.
Also, I've been thinking about this subject myself as I work my shitty third-shift retail drone job. If there is a problem, everyone says "oh well, it's not my problem" except the people who it directly impacts. If someone's actions directly impact other people, making their workload harder or their time at work miserable, oh well -- it's not their problem.
Some people are, plainly, selfish and feel that they are owed things. They see themselves alone, fighting against a monolith, and they feel frustrated that they are being left to fight alone, and do not realize that they are in fact a part of a group and that group cohesion helps everyone in the group. This is the philosophy that Ken Wells is espousing: "Fuck you, I've got mine." Anything else is being retconned in to justify it.
![[other]](/members/icons/other.png){kind=icon}
other (other) at Tue, 25 Aug 2009 03:10:32 +0000:
Whenever rights-talk comes up I just say that I don't do metaphysics. These Rights and Obligations properties that you claim people have don't exist. That never goes over well since they don't believe they are doing metaphysics.
If I really want to engage them, I just make sure to add a third person to their example. Oh crap, now two people have that right or obligation! Now what?
![[mskala]](/members/icons/mskala.png){kind=icon}
Matt (mskala) at Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:30:04 +0000:
Why is it a problem for a third person to be involved?
Jeremy Wolf from 99.236.71.169 at Tue, 25 Aug 2009 17:02:53 +0000:
other: I'm not sure if I understand what you are saying...are you suggesting that there is no such thing as "Natural" rights and obligations, and that these things are merely artificial constructs? If so...I agree with you, actually. But so what? Without them, we would have a pretty nasty society. They seem rather useful to me, so I think that there are merits to discussing them.
Incidentally, Matt, I thought that was a rather effective way to call something Evil. You treated the original argument with respect, went to great lengths to support your counter-argument, only after which you finally called it Evil. Seems to work better than calling something Evil right off the bat. Then again, I agree with much of what you are saying, so I don't know how well it would work on someone who opposes it. At any rate, I may have to steal the strategy that you used here for future use...
other (other) at Wed, 26 Aug 2009 03:09:16 +0000:
Matt: Maybe I'm overgeneralizing, but I've had a few arguments with Objectivists where they want to claim that someone has a right to something in particular. I've added in a third person, one who also claims a right to that particular thing and that blows their mind. Maybe I have debating the wrong people.
Jeremy: Yes, they are merely constructs. Rights talk, I've found, just adds in confusion. When people are talking about rights, too often they are really just talking about wants. Rights talk just throws in a sense of entitlement to their wants.
Now there are a lot of sensible things out there that talk about rights. I'd just rather them say things like "Congress shall make no law..." rather than muddy it up by making up false abstract metaphysics.
Matt (mskala) at Wed, 26 Aug 2009 13:54:06 +0000:
Well, if you're debating with Objectivists, then there's a good chance you're debating with people who insist that everything must always be absolute and extreme, and sure, it's not hard to see that two or more conflicting claims are a problem for anyone who thinks that way. (See "Libertarianism Makes You Stupid.") That might even be part of the basis for the idea that claim-rights don't exist: because they're so likely to create such conflicts.
But I don't think the problem there is rights in general or claims in particular; I think the problem there is insisting that everything must always be absolute and extreme.
Axel from 65.94.181.46 at Thu, 27 Aug 2009 15:06:12 +0000:
About language: are we ever "taught" our home language? It seems we are mostly well equipped to pick up whatever language is being spoken around us as infants. It might be more of an obligation on parents to avoid transmitting a language to a child.
I've forgotten my password but that's another issue.
Matt (mskala) at Thu, 27 Aug 2009 16:06:38 +0000:
Then I guess I'll have to implement the recover-forgotten-password feature I was planning...
![[vilhelm_s]](/members/icons/vilhelm_s.png){kind=icon}
Vilhelm S (vilhelm_s) at Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:32:56 +0000:
(Note that the encylopedia page states that the libertarian-theory distiction between positive and negative rights is different from the Hohfeldian classification into liberties, claims, powers and immunities. The negative right to not be subject to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment ('B has a duty not to subject A to degrading punishment') and the positive right to an adequate standard of living ('B has a duty to supply A with food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services') are both claims in the Hohfeldian system. So 'claims versus liberties' is the wrong terminology for Matt L's distinction.)
I guess what I miss in your argument is a distinction between what is just "generally desirable" and what is a "right". It is clearly desirable to live in a society in which efficient agriculture feeds us all, but saying that something is a right seems like a different, presumably stronger claim. Exactly what the claim is depends on how we define "right"; for instance if we take Mill's definition 'X is a right == the state ought to enforce X', then we certainly don't want the state to enforce that a given person should be a farmer. (States like East Germany, that actually did send people off to mandatory work in the steel mills, tend to be frowned upon).
My feeling is that arguments on the form "these conditions are necessary for people to live rich, fully human lives; therefore..." may be a starting point to set up a theory of duty-based ethics, but perhaps not a theory of rights proper.
Steve from 165.154.153.26 at Sun, 30 Aug 2009 09:10:21 +0000:
I found your short "I'm sorry but..." stance interesting. I think I see where you are coming from, but I don't agree. I'm not sure what part you find objectionable, (the apology or the rhetorical statement) so I'll address each part separately.
I always think of an implied "I disagree" included in the statement as well as respect for the speaker. Much like "Help" is really "Help [me]", it's not just "I'm sorry but..." it's "I'm sorry [sir] but [I disagree]...".
I'm one of those people who use "I'm sorry but..." in conversation. Likely I've used it in a face to face discussion with you and unknowingly irked you by doing so. I've always looked at as it as short polite start to a disagreement. I could say "I respect your position, here is my own position on this topic..." but that's a little long winded. That is my preferred usage of the phrase "I'm sorry but..." but there are other usages.
I think it's a little abrupt to simply state "You're wrong" or "I disagree" as a starting point of a reply. It would likewise be rude not to acknowledge the other person's statement in some way. That short phrase is the lead in to the speaker's own reasoning while giving an early queue to the audience that it will be a rebuttal of a previous statement made by another.
You ask what trespass needs to be apologized for, and it's for something that is just about to happen. It's for any disrespect in the following statement about to be made. In the military, disobeying a superior officer is a crime. Questioning orders (disagreeing) is not a crime, but will really piss people off. In any hierarchal situation a disagreement can be viewed as an affront.
Rhetorical uses of "I'm sorry but.." I think are valid uses of the language in many (not all) cases. Other examples would be "I think" in the previous sentence or Vilhelm S's (previous poster) closing sentence that started with "My feeling is that...". Both are rhetorical uses since we wrote the sentences and obviously we thought/felt it as it was written. Another example would be "I think I see where you are coming from" in my opener. Your own method of delaying the definition of "Evil" was an extremely rhetorical device, but it was also extremely effective to your argument as Jeremy Wolf pointed out.
I will not defend the use of insincere apologies as that also rubs me the wrong way. While an apology can certainly be fake, how can you know that for sure that it is fake without a healthy amount of context? Besides the obvious ones like "I'm sorry you are ugly" I don't think it's really possible to know that state of mind for the casual use of "I'm sorry." I take the conservative approach and try to take statements at face value rather than read too much hidden meaning into them. Odds are "the hidden meaning" coming across are the personal biases of the audience rather than the author.
So, I'm sorry Matt but I disagree with you on the subject of rhetorical apologies. ;-) At least at this time. If you made a compelling argument I might be convinced that "I'm sorry" has no business at the opening of a reply. It sounds like something you want to write so if you do I'll read it.
Matt (mskala) at Sun, 30 Aug 2009 15:14:29 +0000:
Axel: "teaching" a child language might not be as complicated as enrolling them in Pimsleur classes, but I think it involves enough effort to qualify as a positive obligation. You can't just throw the child out in the woods; you must speak some language in their presence. If you wish, you could talk instead about a right to being given food when one is too young to be able to obtain it oneself - though that's dicy because some people think adults *don't* have a similar right and then it's hard to explain why it should go away at some age.
Vilhelm S: Ken Wells is really the one who was making the distinction (Matt L. was responding to it), and he seemed to be drawing both the liberty/claim and the positive/negative claim distinctions. He said negative claims are different from everything else. Are they different because they are negative, or different because they are claims? I think, for the statement to be meaningful at all, it should be because negative claims are *claims*; as the Stanford article discusses, it's not clear that "negative" claims are really different from "positive" claims in a useful way.
As for "a distinction between what is just "generally desirable" and what is a "right".", yes, that's not clear, and I don't know the answer. Section 5 of the Stanford article discusses some possible answers to that but none of them fully satisfy me. I'm not sure that that's a strong enough reason to throw out the entire concept of "rights" as a useful way of thinking about the world, but it sounds like some people do.
Steve: I don't object to the use of rhetorical techniques in general; one might as well object to the use of language at all. However, I generally object to lies, including those used for rhetorical effect, and some specific kinds of rhetorical lies (including fake apologies) are especially annoying to me.
I don't think "I'm sorry but XYZ" only implies "I disagree"; I think it can imply "It is an objective fact (not just my opinion) that you are wrong." The apology is for the listener's error, not for the speaker's disagreement. Of course, this depends on the actual content of XYZ - if it's *absolutely clear* that it's a matter of opinion, the apology may end up sounding sincere. For instance:
(1) "I'm sorry, but I prefer vanilla ice cream."
Note that that one could be phrased in another way that would be more likely to offend the listener:
(2) "I'm sorry, but vanilla is better."
One important difference between the two is that the speaker involved themselves in the statement (as subject of the verb "prefer") in (1) but not in (2). Sentence (1) is a statement about the speaker, but sentence (2) is a statement about objective facts. You don't have the liberty to apologize for objective facts - who do you think you are? You can only apologize for something of your own.
A friend once posted a link on her Web log to an article someone else had written, while making a comment about it that I strongly disapproved of, and I said so, and she said she refused to apologize for my reaction to what the article's author had said. Good thing she refused, because such an "apology" would be no apology at all, in two ways: she claimed my offence was at the article, not anything of hers; and (much worse) that the only wrong thing requiring an apology was something of mine (my reaction) instead of anything of hers (her own commentary) or even a third party's (the article). And there we have the core of it: you can *only* apologize for something you own, and you sound arrogant if you purport to apologize for, thereby claiming ownership of, something else. You're likely to offend people if you purport to apologize for an objective fact ("I'm sorry that chocolate is better") and even more likely if you purport to apologize, on behalf of your listener, for something of theirs ("I'm sorry about your reaction.")
But apologies are supposed to be polite... those who don't analyse language deeply (which is most of us) will look at a sentence that starts with "I'm sorry," recognize that it has the form of something conciliatory and polite, and then be inclined to blame themselves if they are offended by it. Incautious third parties will look at the fake apology and say "There, he apologized, now if you're still angry then you're the one in the wrong." That's why this kind of apology is a lie: it makes the claim "I have fulfilled the formula of making an apology, and so I have earned the associated social benefits" despite having none of the meaningful content that formula is supposed to provide.
Tycho at Penny Arcade wrote a very good couple of paragraphs on this point here: http://www.penny-arcade.com/2009/7/29/ Not his usual subject matter, but I was glad to see it.
Steve from 208.69.243.189 at Tue, 01 Sep 2009 09:12:45 +0000:
I definitely agree that the "sorry" you describe in your 3rd to last paragraph is extremely insulting. I had a roommate that would do exactly as you describe.
My roommate would state something, he'd be wrong and I'd tell him he was wrong in a non-insulting way. He'd insult me for disagreeing with him, typically along the lines of "You are moron if you think that George Lucas made Indiana Jones" etc. I'd confront him with conclusive proof like movie credits and ask for an apology for the insult. He'd respond with something like "I'm sorry I was wrong. I wish I had been right." Or "I'm sorry you feel that you deserve an apology."
He'd call that "saying sorry" when I (and I think others) would find it more insulting than a simple refusal of an apology and in no way an apology for rude behavior, (ie calling names.)
Tycho makes good points and the "apology" he condemns is no apology at all. That being said, your vanilla example is where I believe you go a little overboard and where I disagree with you.
(1) "I'm sorry, but I prefer vanilla ice cream."
(2) "I'm sorry, but vanilla is better."
(3) "I'm sorry, but vanilla is better in my opinion."
I see no difference between 1, 2 or 3. I'll go one further and state I do not understand how anyone could be offended by (2)... at all.
I see no difference because the speaker in #2 is already inferring that it's his own judgment in reference to himself by speaking it. He's really saying "I'm sorry, but vanilla is better [in my opinion]." It's just like above where "Help" is "Help [me]".
I see the "why", you've adequately explained that, but I still don't see the -how-. I mean that to me it's like someone saying "The letter 'A' is for 'Apple'". And then someone taking offense at that statement. The rest of the words that start with 'A' have been ignored or that other languages that use the roman alphabet have apples spelt without 'a' (pomme in French) are inferior might be the rationale. I can see your rationale, I just can't grasp the offense myself.
I often use "I'm sorry but..." in value judgment conversations like your vanilla example.
"That movie was pretty good."
Me: "I'm sorry but that was terrible!"
Sounds like you would have a problem with that reply. Would you find it substantively different if I said, "I'm sorry to be a killjoy, but I disagree and submit my opinion that was a terrible movie."? In my mind both statements are the same, except the latter is needlessly verbose.
This reminds me of this one guy I play Warcraft with. It's a game with lots of buffs to manage, often applied by others. He finds it very rude to be asked in a public way to reapply his buffs when they have worn out. He is completely fine and takes no offense if asked to reapply buffs in chat only he can see/hear. Nobody understands why he thinks it's rude, but we accept that he does find it rude and we do as he wishes.
I kind of feel that way with you Matt. I don't understand why you feel it's rude, but I'll attempt to follow your wishes by not using "I'm sorry" rhetorically for facts. I'm sorry if I accidentally do so at some time in the future.
Steve from 208.69.243.189 at Tue, 01 Sep 2009 09:25:44 +0000:
Where do you stand on conciliatory 'sorry'?
I wished to express my support for you and wish to console you for your disappointment in your job/career on your next blog post but did not do so due to this discussion. Saying, "I'm sorry the last 8 months didn't go as well as you hoped." Is that offensive to you? It's an objective fact I'm apologizing for but it doesn't seem in any way offensive if said to me. It would certainly -not- be my intention to pour salt on such a sore point.
Matt (mskala) at Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:16:53 +0000:
On "That movie was pretty good."/"I'm sorry but that was terrible!": Yes, I think that one is offensive. The critical issue is that an apology must be a statement about the person who is apologizing, and that isn't, it's a statement about the movie. That's also the reason I think number (2) in your list of examples is offensive, whereas (1) and (3) aren't; number (2) is a statement about vanilla ice cream in the abstract without involving the speaker, whereas the others both involve the speaker. You suggest that the speaker's involvement is implicit in (2) and doesn't need to be spelled out, but I disagree - I think actually saying it makes an important difference, and by the standard you're applying hardly any statement would ever not involve the speaker.
Of course there are different degrees of offensiveness, and in context (2) probably wouldn't upset me much... but (1) or (3) are definitely better.
To mix things up a bit more, though, I don't see what's wrong with "I'm sorry I was wrong. I wish I had been right."; though "I'm sorry you feel that you deserve an apology." is very offensive. They seem totally different to me. Of course there could be other factors (such as a sarcastic tone of voice) that could spoil it, but just based on what's in those words as quoted, it seems to me that "I'm sorry I was wrong." is a legitimate apology. It accepts ownership of the error. Is your objection that he didn't specify what he was wrong about? I do think that doing so would be better.
The thing with "I'm sorry the last 8 months didn't go as well as you hoped." is that that's not presented as an apology; it's a description of your emotional state that just happens to include the sequence of characters "I'm sorry." The word "sorry" has more than one sense and a different sense is being used in that sentence as compared to the others. (Quick test illustrating the difference: you could substitute a different emotion word, like "I'm disappointed that..." without destroying that sentence, whereas you couldn't if it were an apology.) I'm not offended by it, and I think you, I, and most other people would immediately understand that it's not meant to be interpreted as an apology in the same way that these other examples are or claim to be apologies. The function of your saying that sentence is actually to *increase* the personal connection between you and a situation that otherwise has nothing to do with you; it's totally different from the specific fake-apology technique I'm objecting to, in which a speaker attempts to *reduce* the personal connection between themselves and their subjective opinions.
Matt (mskala) at Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:32:52 +0000:
Oh, and to clarify: when I say it's offensive to "purport to apologize for an objective fact" I mean it's bad to apologize for a purportedly objective fact; not that it's bad to purport to apologize, for something that really is an objective fact.
"I'm sorry that chocolate is better." is a problem because chocolate being better isn't an objective fact but the sentence presents it as one. "I'm sorry that two plus two equals four." sounds less offensive (though it would be context-sensitive - better not use it if there's any genuine dispute over the question of what two plus two equals) precisely because "two plus two equals four" is more obviously objective. Similarly, "the last 8 months didn't go as well as you hoped" is, if not entirely objective, at least obviously unrelated to you, so your presenting it as unrelated to you doesn't look like a lie. I think that the false claim of objectivity - putting oneself above others by giving one's own opinions that special status - may be the real sin here, with the "apology" form of the technique incidental to that. Other false claims of objectivity that don't involve a fake apology are also offensive for what feels like the same reasons.
Matt (mskala) at Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:45:22 +0000:
Also: note that "I'm sorry, but" is different from "I'm sorry that"; "but" creates a weaker link, and a contrast, between "I'm sorry" and whatever follows. The fact that you can grammatically put a comma in front of "but" and not in front of "that" illustrates the difference. (The comma may be optional in front of "but", but it's not allowed in front of "that".) I think saying "I'm sorry but" is much more likely to be offensive than "I'm sorry that".
Now let's translate this all into Japanese and debate 「は」 versus 「が」...
Steve from 165.154.153.221 at Tue, 01 Sep 2009 22:11:23 +0000:
As to the roommate example,
(a) "I'm sorry I was wrong. I wish I had been right."
The second sentence clarifies that the first statement is entirely internalized. That he is only disappointed in himself, not in his actions towards others (remember there was name calling, ie moron). There is no apology, only self disappointment expressed.
Contrast that to:
(b) "I'm sorry. I was wrong."
Perhaps "sorry" applies to the direct insult of the name calling. Perhaps "wrong" applies to the decision to call names. Or perhaps that is the admission of who is factually correct. Only the speaker knows exactly what exactly the apology is for and what was specifically wrong. Regardless it is a generalized apology which can cover an entire incident and therefore covers all bases.
(c)"I was wrong."
Not as good as the previous, but still good as an apology even though no "sorry" is used. It can apply to the entire incident and therefor to actions of the speaker, and that's where the offense was taken. If the speaker intends it to apply only to the factual error made, then it is no apology and the
(d) "I'm sorry, I was wrong."
Which is just a comma splice of the previous example. But the two separate thoughts are there.
(e)"I'm sorry I was wrong."
Is back in the same boat as the first example. I do not like it as an apology because the statement has no relation to other people. Like (a) it is internalized. The speaker is sorry about the factual error, not about anything else. However it's not a totally clear statement and as such I would grudgingly accept it as not to force the issue. It's what I consider a fake apology but I'll call it a shitty apology instead as not to muddy the discussion.
Now let's take away the name calling from the situation. That's where the true offense lies, not in any factual error. In all (a-e) I would be totally accepting of all statements without complaint. However that's because I would not feel owed an apology because no offense was given by a mere factual error. That error would have to impact me negatively in some way to feel to be owed an apology.
Sigh. I had more written and lost it due to a power failure.
Steve from 165.154.153.33 at Tue, 01 Sep 2009 23:29:51 +0000:
Ah crap. I lost some of the above in the power failure.
"If the speaker intends it to apply only to the factual error made, then it is no apology and the " should end;
and the insult still has not been addressed. The audience has no way of determining the true intention of the speaker and must assume that it applies to the entire incident and accept it as a real apology even if was only a partial non-apology.
Matt (mskala) at Wed, 02 Sep 2009 21:37:24 +0000:
"The second sentence clarifies that the first statement is entirely internalized. That he is only disappointed in himself, not in his actions towards others (remember there was name calling, ie moron). There is no apology, only self disappointment expressed."
That's a fascinating statement. My point of view is that "self disappointment" is the very essence of apology - in order to be a legitimate apology it *must* be primarily a statement about the speaker's own failing and not a statement about anyone else; my examples of unacceptable non-apologies are all based on the speaker attempting to distance themselves from any personal connection to an infraction, making it be about someone else and not about themselves. You seem to be saying that your example (a) isn't a legitimate apology because it's too self-centred; from your point of view an apology must involve others.
Those two views aren't quite opposite - I said it should be *about* the speaker, you seem to be saying it should *involve* others, and it can well be *about* the speaker while also *involving* others. Presumably something meeting both standards would satisfy us both. But it does sound like we disagree on the basic definition of apology.
I'm not quite clear, in your list of examples, which ones you consider acceptable and which not (bearing in mind that that's not purely binary - some can be better than others, and all are at least somewhat context-sensitive). I think you're saying that (a) is unacceptable; (b), (c), and (d) are acceptable but (b) is better; and (e) is not really acceptable but you'd grudgingly accept it because of ambiguity. Is that accurate? Noting that (e) differs from (d) only by a comma, it's going to be very hard to make that particular distinction in spoken language...
Your mention of factual errors brings up another point, which is that if there's a factual point in dispute, apologizing for real means giving up that point. An apology is an instrument of surrender. If you won't, or can't, *give up*, for real, on the factual point at issue, then you're in no position to apologize and shouldn't offer to; and anything with the form of an apology that still attempts to advance the point under dispute, is likely to be offensive. Form isn't enough; there has to be substance if substance is in question.
Matt (mskala) at Wed, 02 Sep 2009 21:43:26 +0000:
If Tycho's description is accurate (I only skimmed the EA "apology" and don't know the details of the events that led up to it), then that EA thing would be a good example of not giving up the substance - they "apologize" for the reaction caused by their actions, but they give no indication that they see anything wrong with the important part of what they actually did, nor that they won't do it again and just try to get better PR next time. That may be the problem you're highlighting in your example (a), too: it may be a real apology (under my definition) but it's an apology for *the wrong thing*, and by its existence it draws attention to the lack of apology for the actual hurt.
Steve from 165.154.153.119 at Thu, 03 Sep 2009 09:38:15 +0000:
Yes. My point of view is an apology -must- (not can, not should, but must) involve others. It has to be an apologetic statement -in relation- to that person/group for a possible affront. If it's not, it's merely a statement of self regret, not an apology. The word "sorry" can be either an apology or regret and it can be both at the same time. "Regret" and "apology" are strongly related but are not synonyms.
Stating regret is fine, but it is no apology. "I'm sorry I got trapped alone on this deserted island." Would be an apology to... yourself? It doesn't work.
You are totally correct in how I view (a-e). I added a bit more detail to (d) that got lost in the power failure. Basically (d) could be a grammatically incorrect (b) or a grammatically incorrect (e). More likely it's (b) because the author is attempting to break up the the two ideas. Rationally the only time (d)=(e) would be a typo, in which case "sorryy" would be more common than "sorry," etc.
Apologizing for a a factual error that caused no offense I consider conversational cruft. It is in the same boat as "eh" "umm" "like you know" "ok" or "cheers mate". It adds nothing, and takes nothing away. (I know we disagree on the latter.) Any anime is full of these pointless apologies, but I look at it same as if it was a valley girl saying "like you know?" after every other sentence. Meaningless and non-offensive.
It's enough to admit (surrender the point) the a factual mistake without actually apologizing for it. It's a same as getting the answer to a math problem wrong. (2+2=5... Oh should be 4. Sorry) It should cause no offense in and of itself, therefore there is no offense to apologize for. If the factual error created some slight, (or something that could cause a slight, like wasted time) then the apology is warranted. A math error on a dinner bill is a good example of a factual mistake that should be apologized for.
I totally agree with your reasoning on the EA non-apology. It's the worst case of a fake apology and obviously so because as you say, it draws attention to the fact they don't get it.
Steve from 165.154.153.119 at Thu, 03 Sep 2009 09:55:31 +0000:
What is your opinion on the boardgame "Sorry!" by Hasbro?
It's very traditional to say "Sorry!" when you remove another player's piece from the board. Like Monopoly's "free parking" the common house rule is if you do not say sorry by the end of the turn that your own piece is removed instead. It's a simple little game with very few player based decisions. Mostly things happen randomly from dice you can't even touch. On that basis it's a whole lot of apologizing for factual events of which the person giving the apology had no real say about.
I think I know you stand on it from this discussion. For me, it's an apology for the slight to the other person, not for the random event. Therefore I find it a perfectly valid use of "sorry".
Matt (mskala) at Thu, 03 Sep 2009 19:00:58 +0000:
Well, if we're seriously going to start discussing apologies in anime, we'll have to consider the very different cultural expectations between Japanese-speaking and English-speaking groups as to what's an apology and when you should apologize. Up to now I've been talking about apologies in English; it's clear that some concepts transfer over the language/culture gap but I'm not sure they all do.
On the board game, I think that's a special situation, at least if you enforce the rule that people lose their spot should they fail to say "Sorry!" (I just tried to look up the official rules and can find no mention of this, but I know I've played with people who play as you describe, so I think it's a popular house rule added to the official ones.) Normally you're not expected to apologize for playing a game to win, if you do so within the rules, even though that may involve actions that (interpreted outside the game) might be seen as rude. E.g. if we're playing croquet and I knock your ball into a disadvantageous location, you wouldn't normally expect me to apologize, not even if I did it on purpose specifically to make you lose. If saying "sorry" is an enforced rule of the game, then doing it isn't really an apology but just another move in the game; and calling someone on failure to do it isn't really demanding an apology, but itself another move in the game. Note there's a similar thing in the game of "Uno" where you can be required to say "uno" and penalized if you don't - but neither of those has much to do with politeness, and "uno" (although it does mean "one" in Spanish and describes the situation of having one card remaining) is effectively a nonsense word. So I think the "sorry" in the game falls into the same category as your "I'm sorry the last eight months didn't go well" example - it's some other form of communication that happens to resemble an apology on the surface, but it wouldn't be understood as an attempt at apology and doesn't invoke the same issues.
But at the same time, it does seem like that game is vaguely simulating some kind of real situation, at about the same level as chess simulates war... I imagine the situation being simulated in "Sorry" as something like people taking positions in a line, and in that case if for some reason you are pushed in front of someone by the forces of Pop-o-Matic fate, it's reasonable that you might say "Sorry" as a genuine apology - acknowledging that you have committed an infraction against them. I think that'd qualify as an apology under both our definitions, even if it happens that most of the details are left implicit. In the physical situation it may be obvious from non-verbal communication what the factual issues are; I'd interpret it as very similar to saying "Excuse me."
Matt (mskala) at Thu, 03 Sep 2009 19:04:32 +0000:
The desert island example could be turned into an apology: "Why were you late for school?" "I'm sorry, I got trapped on a desert island." But I snuck in a comma there, so we may be back to your (d)/(e) distinction...
Steve from 165.154.153.204 at Fri, 04 Sep 2009 16:23:11 +0000:
So on Sorry!:the boardgame, I thought that might be your response.
Would it change anything for you if the game was called "Widget!"? Or if you had to say "Widget!" for when you remove another player's piece? For me it would. I'd still end up saying "sorry" when I remove another player's piece. I know it's part of the game, but I wouldn't/do not use "excuse me" when I've gained at the expense of another be it a board game or poker.
With the example: "Why were you late for school?" "I'm sorry, I got trapped on a desert island."
That comes back to apologizing for the the slight to another, rather than apologizing for getting trapped. It's easier to see by dropping the reason/excuse of the island entirely:
"Why were you late for school?" "I'm sorry."
or the sorry:
"Why were you late for school?" "I got trapped on a desert island."
Implied in "Why were you late for school?" "I'm sorry, I got trapped on a desert island" is a duty of care the apologizer has to the questioner. It's the violation of this duty that's the subject of the "sorry" and nothing to do with the island. It would be a clear (d) distinction.
The slight to the other person could be many things, perhaps that person is an authority figure (parent, teacher etc) or perhaps you were supposed to meet them at school and they got stood up. It really doesn't matter what offense could have been, whatever it is it's covered by a blanket apology.
Consider the same statements where we define the first speaker as someone who is owed no duty of care. The one posing the question is a younger student who is comparing his attendance record from 2 weeks previous to your own.
With the same scenario (but now the speakers defined) if asked "Why were you late for school?" would "I'm sorry, I got trapped on a desert island" as a reply still make sense?
I claim that the "I'm sorry" in the sentence now doesn't make sense. It sounds wrong and out of place. (Not offensive, just out of place.) If the sorry applied specifically to "trapped on a desert island" then the context of the questioner shouldn't matter. It should always ring the same regardless of circumstances of the other party if it does not involve the other party.
Matt (mskala) at Fri, 04 Sep 2009 22:19:27 +0000:
Well, you certainly have to apologize *to* someone. You can't just generally apologize without a recipient. I guess that's the point you're making, and to that extent I think we agree. I'm not sure how far it's necessary for the recipient to be specifically acknowledged in the words that form the apology; but those are going to be very context-sensitive and it may be a losing game to try to determine it solely from the words.
Note that "I'm sorry [that] I got trapped on a desert island" is a perfectly reasonable thing to say. If trapped on a desert island, you probably do feel pretty unhappy about it. But it's also clear that that is not an apology - and if presented to someone who was demanding an apology for your resulting lateness to school, it would be taken as an insult. I think that's the same thing you complain about with "I'm sorry [that] I was wrong": it's leaving out the effect on other people.
Have we beaten this one to death? I'm tempted to write a new posting about it, in which I'd summarize that it seems the important things an apology must contain include taking responsibility for what happened; taking responsibility for its effect on others; admitting that oneself is at fault and the apology recipient isn't; and giving up any status the trespass was attempting to claim; but I'm under my word count target for today and don't really want to spend time writing that up right now.
Matt (mskala) at Fri, 04 Sep 2009 22:23:50 +0000:
On the board game: I don't think it would change anything if the game were called "Widget!". In context, the word used seems to me to have very little meaning beyond its function in the game.
Steve from 165.154.153.97 at Tue, 08 Sep 2009 06:58:47 +0000:
Yes, I think it would be good to summarize this side discussion elsewhere. I wouldn't call it "beaten to death" but I know what you mean. I found it interesting to know what others find offensive when I find it the opposite.
![[kiwano]](/members/icons/kiwano.png){kind=icon}
kiwano (kiwano) at Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:03:21 +0000:
While I certainly found this to be an interesting enough read; what are you expecting the desired throngs of third-party readers to do with this discussion? Are you interested in their feedback? Are you looking to raise awareness of the importance of positive rights?
If I were writing a piece like this, I'd probably be doing it out of a desire to have it read by internet libertarians in order to compel them to rethink their notion of "rights" and either develop a coherent/consistent rebuttal or forfeit some of their claims of reason. Alternately, it would be to arm internet non-libertarians with these arguments to use when some libertarian starts trotting out their usual negative-rights-only tirade.
Based on that motive, I'd probably wind up paying more attention to trying to find a way to put these points forward in a forum that already has these people's attention (without resorting to spamming or trolling, of course).
You mentioned that this is only part of the reason that you want a lot of third-party traffic, but maybe some of the other reasons could be addressed by alternate means. Some might remain, but cutting down on the reasons might also provide a degree of improved focus to any efforts to attract visitors.
(Also, there's that whole bit about psychic vacuums and all. If you find/pursue these alternate means, that can be strangely effective at accomplishing the goal which you were trying to abandon)
Matt (mskala) at Mon, 02 Nov 2009 23:58:31 +0000:
Are you familiar with Guy L. Steele's talk "Growing a Language"? It's linked from my name on this comment. It might be well to think of my discussion of rights, above, as similar in nature to the early stages of that talk. It's not particularly intended to provoke action or behaviour change in itself. It's just meant to be read and understood.
You, especially, seem to be fond of asking me questions and then dismissing the definitions on which the answers depend. I wouldn't do this just for you alone, but for the benefit of the many people like you, I'm trying to support my definitions and get them agreed to and understood, including the reasons behind them, before I try to build on top of them.
That's the big picture. The little picture is simply that I saw an interesting link, had a thought about it that I hadn't had before, and I thought that the people already reading my Web site might like to see what I'd seen and read about what I'd thought. Although I hope to fit it into a bigger project, this particular article wasn't planned for years in advance.
Where do you think I should post the sapphire article - perhaps on a Web forum frequented by minerologists?
kiwano (kiwano) at Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:49:50 +0000:
I'm trying not to dismiss your definitions so much as I'm trying to stay within a fairly small language of motives, so to speak. The vast majority of the motives that I feel comfortable dealing with are pretty simple: "because I'm cold", "because I'm hungry", "because I'm bored", "because I'm tired", "because I'm lonely", "because I'm annoyed" (a motive that I suspect plays a factor in your participation in this discussion), etc. I'll also admit a peculiar motive best sumarized as "because it's there", if only because I have observed that motive, in my own person, overpower the motives of cold, hunger, boredom, fatigue, loneliness, annoyance, etc. (and my name on this post links to documentation of an activity so motivated), and another class of (only slightly) peculiar motives of the variety "I couldn't bear to see him/her cold/hungry/etc.".
So I think the problem may be that your definitions are made using a larger language than I've been working with. Unless you throw a few extra definitions in there, I just keep failing to understand them (and may appear to be dismissing them on those grounds).
Like I'd totally understand if you're checking out various articles and posting your thoughts on them because you're bored, and then wanting more people to read your posts because having them sit there unread leaves you feeling kinda lonely (not to mention that having people's responses to read helps you kill some future boredom).
Also, your desire for a large audience appears not to be of the "because it's there" variety otherwise I suspect that your site would stop reflecting your personality so much, and reflect instead this desire for an audience (i.e. you'd start attention-whoring way more shamelessly if you just wanted visitors).
If you want this sort of unsolicited advice to stop, I suspect that it might help expand the motive-describing-language of those of us predisposed to keep giving it to you (even when you ask not to get it).
P.S. Nice work on introducing that talk as a means to grow some language around this persistent problem you seem to have with commenters such as myself.
Add Comment
Do not enter a fake email address. If you don't want to provide one, just leave it blank. Comments with fake email addresses will be deleted.
This form is for posting public comments to be read by other people who visit this Web site. If you have a software support question, or other material directed to the page author instead of to the general public, please send email instead.
All the data you enter, and your IP address, will be saved and displayed. Don't enter secret information. HTML is not accepted; it will be displayed as plain text. Your comment will only be added if you enter valid data in all required fields; if it isn't, use the back button and try again.
I, and I alone, reserve the right to remove postings for any reason.
![[RSS syndication file]](/i/rss.png){kind=small}
Anonymous from 206.248.139.25 at Mon, 24 Aug 2009 23:51:44 +0000:
The arguments are pretty extreme and silly.
Even REAL objectivists (like Rand herself) recognize that the RULE of law and the execution of law needs to exist for their world to exist. This would imply someone has to do it, but according to them the economy would sort it out anyways.
I don't see how these people can turn off their brains and claim no one wants to be a govt paid doctor. I'm sure someone does.