John starts off the show by reviewing the philosophical relevance of apology: what are apologies supposed to achieve? When are they necessary? What kinds of apologies are there, and does apology differ from ritual, repentance, and regret? John and Ken then ask their guest, Nick Smith, how he became interested in studying the meaning of apology and briefly discuss its relevance in legal proceedings.

John, Ken, and Nick then go into more depth on the meaning of apologizing. What distinguishes a true apology from a generic expression of regret, an exercise in polite excusing, and a strategy for gaining social favor? They discuss the moral values associated with apology and the implications of its moral nature. Can you apologize for accidents? Can groups apologize? Can a sincere apology really make up for concrete harms?

在最后一部分中，肯、约翰和尼克开始讨论在政治世界中道歉。怎样才能使它们超越平庸的社交操纵工具?个别政治人物如何能代表他们所代表的群体道歉?他们和他们所代表的群体的关系要密切到什么程度，道歉才有意义?他们必须承担个人责任吗?然后，他们讨论如何在一个多元的环境下进行道歉，在这种环境下，人们不同意那些需要道歉的价值观。他们的结论是，我们如何看待道歉，取决于我们是否从功利主义和康德的立场来评估它们，这方面的一些基本伦理差异。

• Roving Philosophical Report(Seek to 5:00): Zoe Corneli goes to a San Francisco mall to find out about buyers' remorse and buying remorse.

• 60-Second Philosopher(Seek to 49:55): Ian Shoales compares apology in the classic world, where it was a form of defense, to apology in today's world, where everything seems to cause offense.