Nick Smith, J.D. and Ph.D., author ofI Was Wrong: The Meanings of Apologies(Cambridge University Press, 2008)

Assistant Professor of Philosophy, University of New Hampshire

nick.smith@unh.edu

For a video of Spitzer's apology with this essay, seehttp://cupblog.wordpress.com/2008/03/17/parsing-spitzers-apology/

Elliot Spitzer’s recent statements accompanying his resignation as governor of New York provide an occasion to reflect on the meanings of apologies. I find apologies dizzyingly complex social rituals and inI Was Wrong: The Meanings of Apologies——由剑桥大学出版社于2008年出版——我发现了十几种我们从悔罪姿态中寻求的含义。我不担心一个例子“是或不是”道歉，而是想知道它在多大程度上达到了某种目的，以及它在多大程度上传达了某种微妙的社会含义。我把这些称为“相互关联的含义的松散组合”，在某些情况下，受害者可能希望得到我所提到的每一种形式的含义。在另一些情况下，她可能只寻求一种意义，如真诚的同情或无情的支付修理费。

我在这本书中花了很多篇幅来阐述对不同意义领域进行分析的不精确科学。我首先考虑了道歉如何解释受伤的历史。有争议的事实往往处于道德冲突的核心，在某些情况下，冒犯者对自己错误行为的性质的解释可能是道歉中最重要和最难获得的方面。然后，我勇敢地回答了道歉和责任之间的关系这个棘手的问题。我将其细分为以下几个方面的关注:1)接受指责和表示同情之间的区别，就像我们经常发现的“我很抱歉你发生了X”的形式;2)因果关系与道德责任的一般关系;3)事故的状态和常见的以“我不是故意的”为形式的意图否认;4)站姿问题，一个人为另一个人道歉。然后，我指出了在需要道歉的行为中确定每一个道德错误的重要性，这需要明确地指出这一过错是对道德价值的应受谴责的违反，也需要指出每一个过错，而不是用一个无差别的、通用的忏悔声明来掩盖大量的错误。此外，一个后悔的罪犯认为她的行为是错误的，如果遇到类似的情况和诱惑，她不会再犯。 I then considered the various ways in which the performance of the apology can alter meaning. The problems of reform and reparation presented numerous points of discussion, as did questions regarding the emotions and intentions of the apologizer. Collective apologies, such as those from corporations or nations, compound these issues.

The book considers the many nuances and gritty details of apologetic meaning, but in general I find that asking a few simple questions can take us to the heart of the meaning of an apology: Did the offender explain what she did with an appropriate degree of specificity? Does she accept blame? Does she make clear why her actions were wrong and identify the principles she violated? Does she promise not to do it again redress the problem she caused? These questions tend to lead to further questions about the meanings of any given apology, but they can provide some insight in Spitzer’s case.

First, Spitzer’s statements obviously admit very little. Rather than “coming clean” and confessing the details of his wrongdoing, he leaves us to speculate. He could have admitted all of the relevant facts, but instead it may require years of investigations and legal proceedings to disclose the extent of his transgressions. Or he might strike a deal that effectively ends the discussion. His repeated description of the reason for his resignation as a “private failing” seems untenable given that he is a former governor and attorney general facing charges in several federal crimes, but casting the offense in this way suggests that he may deny the prostitution-related charges and instead cast the sexual relations as an affair but not a crime. This may seem like a losing argument given the facts discussed publicly to date, but Spitzer may negotiate himself into a position to sustain this claim and avoid criminal charges. If he denies relations with a prostitute, he will not apologize for that specifically.

I also wonder about the nature of his relationship with the high-priced prostitution ring. Was he an otherwise typical client, or did he somehow abuse his power as a former prosecutor to establish special authority and protections? Surely his involvement with prostitution required him to repeatedly lie and breach the trust of his family, his staff, and the general public, but these offenses go unnamed. Such spectacular moral failings often result from the aggregation of many lesser offenses, and such an accounting would provide insights into the character of Elliot Spitzer and the nature of this offense.

除了他没有承认丑闻的道德突出事实外，他为什么认为自己的行为是错误的还不清楚。他说他“没有达到人们对他的期望”，但是他违背了什么价值观呢?我们会受益于这里的一些精确。为什么是错的?因为他在很多方面都不尊重他的妻子吗?就因为他让他的孩子们经受这种折磨吗?因为他一再撒谎?因为他付钱给一个比他小27岁的经济脆弱的女人跟他上床?因为他支持一个他公开谴责的行业吗?因为他声称自己希望他的政府“以道德和正直为特征”后的虚伪，助长了公众对政府官员的讥讽? Because he weakened the Democratic Party? Because he violated the rule of law, which is an especially grievous offense for a public official of his stature? Or was his primary failing, in his eyes, getting caught? His apology would have considerably more meaning if he explained what he did and made explicit why he believes it was wrong in these regards.

A few other features of Spitzer’s apology warrant comment. What were his intentions for providing the apologetic statements? Spitzer may have negotiated with prosecutors to offer his resignation and apology in exchange for lenience in criminal proceedings against him. If so, his apology may seem entirely self-serving rather than an attempt to advance the victims’ well-being and affirm the breached values. Such intentions can drain an apology of much of its moral value.

Spitzer also helps himself to various “emotional amplifiers” in his statements, indicating that he is “deeply sorry” and that he “sincerely apologizes.” I discuss the emotional components of apologies in some detail inI Was Wrong，但我们可以认识到，很难确定斯皮策是否经历过足够强烈的忏悔情绪。他使用的“深深的抱歉”和“真诚的道歉”并没有给我们提供一个了解他的情绪和精神状态的窗口。我通常反对道歉的情绪本质上是报应的观点——道歉者理应遭受严重的羞辱——但他关于“跌倒就爬起来”的言论显得如此自信，以至于他们冒着降低冒犯严重性的风险。有时，他的声明听起来像是在庆祝一场艰苦的战役，并光荣地向强大的敌人投降。

This leads me to wonder about the timing of his apology. Spitzer apologized within hours of initial reports of the scandal, and he resigned while further apologizing within forty-eight hours. Spitzer leapt from one peak to the next in his career, and he was by all measures a rising star. His political career came crashing down; his family will never be the same. I can only imagine how he suffers. Here we should recognize a truth that often conflicts with our media culture: moral development does not occur with a news cycle. Spitzer has a great deal of work to do, and he will be accounting for this for the rest of his life. Here reform and redress can hold much meaning. In my view, the best apologies are like promises to change. Like promises, we cannot judge them fully in the moments they are spoken. We need time to search for the deepest values that orient our lives and begin rebuilding our future with habits that honor those principles. We are all engaged in this process, and although it may not make for good television it this the sort of persistent moral growth that creates good people.

For these reasons I do not think we should make too much of Spitzer’s apology. The words are vague and its meaning is ambiguous, like someone telling you that they love you on the first date. Such a statement could well be a life-transforming proclamation, but we would need to know much more before we could make a well-informed judgment. We will have a much better sense of the meaning of Elliot Spitzer’s March 2008 apologies if we check in with him in ten years.